53fe 



:>>> >5^d>l£ 






- ^»>i^> > 



xtrz 
>> > 






:-*-» 



.»PC>2*5 



5» "> -> — 




%t 



■®&m^B6Er 









fig 
3» -» - 






-• 












;2&9 



•■fe 






:^»>^> 



^B5i 



>JEfe> 






■■*:^H«|,'"*-3PK>!>^» J 



■ fes»»T * " 



E>. 









# 



a 



? LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 

• , f\ 

" <=&%*# 1*57 1 

|| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. £ 



If 



H 



■ 



ADDRESS 



OF 






MR.FAULKNER, OF VIRGINIA, 



ON 



THE LA 



POLICY 



OF 



THE UNITED STATES 




WASHINGTON: 
CORNELIUS WENDELL, PRINTER, 

1857. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



General results of the land system of the United States 4 

Views of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay thereon 5 

Quantity and value of public land _ 6 

Mr. Calhoun's report thereon. _ 6 

School lands 10 

Swamp lands _ _ _ 10 

Railroad grants __ _- 11 

Secretary of the Interior's report on tli© benefit to the United States of railroad 

grants _ 11 

Division of the public lands among the States 12 

Views of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay against the same - 12, 13, 14 

Distribution of the proceeds of the public lands 14 

Distribution unconstitutional. _ _ 16 

Mr. Calhoun's views thereon. __,. 16 

Distribution deceptive . . _ _ 17 

General Jackson's views thereon 18 

Mr. Buchanan's views thereon _ - 18 

Distribution impairs the economy and simplicity of the State governments 18 

General Jackson's views thereon _ 18 

Distribution leads to consolidation __ 19 

General Jackson's views thereon 19 

Distribution a recognition of the power of Congress to appropriate money for 

local internal improvements. 19 

General Jackson's views thereon 20 

Distribution recognises the power of the federal government to assume the 

debts of the States 20 

Distribution injurious to the interest of the poor man _ 20 

Democratic platform for twenty years on distribution 21 

What would be the amount for annual distribution. _ -__. __ 21 

Aggregate revenue of public lands to this time . _ 22 

Aggregate cost of public lands. 22 

Mr. Benton on the demagogueism of distribution 23 

Tariff of 1857 24 

Mr. Clay against the power to collect taxes for distribution amongst the States 24, 25 

Mr. Clay's distribution act merely an alternative for cession 26 

Webster, Rives, and Benton ._ -- 26 

Daniel Webster, no speech of, favoring distribution. ._ 26 

William C. Rives, failure of, to publish his speech in favor of distribution 26 

Mr. Benton's attack on Mr. Rives' vote in favor of distribution •_ 

Benefit derived by Virginia from the public lands 

Edmund Burke on the land policy of England 29 

Revenue from cultivation of lands - 29 

Fallacy of the decline of Virginia - 30 

Increase in value of the real estate in Virginia since 1850 — -_.. r _ 31 

Increase in value of real estate in eighth Congressional district since 1850 31 

Wonderful increase in value of real estate in some of the counties 31 

Deposit compared with distribution _. ^r->». 32 

Deposit Bill of 1836. - 33 

Views of Messrs. Buchanan and Calhoun thereon 33, 34 

Condition of Treasury i-n 1 857 necessitating Deposit Bill 35 

Effect of Deposit Bill, if it had become a law, on Virginia 35 



--4 



To the Voters of the 8th Congressional District of Virginia: 

The policy has been adopted by the opposition press of this State, 
and zealously pursued for the last five months, of making an issue 
with the Democratic party upon the subject of the Public Lands. We 
have been arraigned as faithless stewards of the Public Domain — as 
having promoted, or connived at its waste and mismanagement, and 
the recognized doctrines of our party are assailed as inconsistent with 
the true interests and permanent welfare of Virginia. We have been 
held up as careless of the progress of public improvements, indifferent 
to the burdens of the tax-payer, and altogether behind the age in the 
proper conception of a saving State policy. We are told that all those 
antiquated notions of State pride, State dignity, and State self-reli- 
ance should now be abandoned, which have heretofore been cherished 
by us, and which have been regarded as a part of our moral, if not of 
our material wealth, and that Virginia being now ascertained to 
be incapable of doing anything for herself, must hereafter look to 
the National Government for the means of improvement and sup- 
port. We are called upon to renounce our principles as mere " sense- 
less dogmas" as iC ridiculous abstractions," as sounding brass and 
tinkling cymbal, and to place ourselves under the guidance and guard- 
ianship of the Know Nothing Editorial corps of this State, who have 
shown in so remarkable a degree their own competency as instructors 
of a free people in the principles of civil liberty and the doctrines of 
constitutional law. 

I am one of those who believe that the position heretofore taken and 
maintained by the Democratic party of this State and nation in rela- 
tion to the public domain is wise, conservative, and in accordance with 
the Constitution, and that any departure from that position will be 
found injurious to the people and subversive of the character ox our 
constitutional system. 

I have already taken occasion to address the people in four of the 
counties of this congressional district in vindication of my views on 
this important question, and have made appointments which I expect 
to fill in all of the remaining counties. And yet I am well aware how 
comparatively few of the voters can be present at these public ad- 
dresses, and how difficult it. is, even for the besfrinformed who may be 
present, at all times, to learn with precision the views of the speaker, 
and retain the facts and statistics which may be laid before them. 

The attention of the people has not been particularly drawn for 
several years to the subject of the public lands. I have no recollection 
that they have ever before formed any prominent point in the political 
discussions of the day ; and indeed they have entirely passed from the 
issues of the country since 1844. Much misconception now prevails 
in the public mind in reference to the action and policy of Congress 



4 



on the subject, and the opposition press, by the course of argument 
and discussion which it pursues, lias not at all sought to enlighten 
and iniorm the public judgment. 

I have been called upon by formal letters, from both the counties of 
Loudon and Hampshire, to present in some permanent and convenient 
form my views on this question, and I have sought in this address to 
comply with their wishes. I regret that the circumstances of the haste 
in which it has been prepared must necessarily render it very imper- 
fect. It has been gotten up during the special term of the circuit 
court of Berkely, when my attention has been constantly diverted from 
the task by my urgent professional labors. It is, however, designed 
simply to furnish facts and materials for reflection, which the voter 
can ponder over at his leisure. I have not been ambitious of using my 
own language, but have always preferred, whenever I could do so, to 
embrace my own sentiments in extracts from the speeches, &c, of the 
leading and distinguished statesmen of the country. 

I have sought to embody in this address a mass of useful informa- 
tion which cannot fail to be instructive to all who may have time and 
leisure to peruse it. 

LAND SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES, WITH ITS GENERAL RESULTS 
UPON THE PROSPERITY AND HAPPINESS OF THE PEOPLE. 

"At an early period of our history Congress adopted a system foi 
surveying and selling the public lands, devised with much care and 
great deliberation, the advantages of which have been fully tested by 
experience. According to that system, all public lands offered for 
sale are previously accurately surveyed by skillful surveyors in ranges 
of townships of six miles square each, which townships are subdivided 
into thirty-six equal divisions or square miles, called sections, by lines 
crossing each other at right angles, and generally containing 640 
acres. These sections are again divided into quarters, and prior to 
the year 1820 no person could purchase a less quantity than a quarter. 
In that year a provision was made for the farther division of the sec- 
tions into eighths, thereby allowing a purchaser to buy only eighty 
acres if he wished to purchase no more. Since that time, further to ex- 
tend accommodation to the purchasers ol the public lands, and especially 
to the poorer classes, the sections have again been divided into six- 
teenths, admitting a purchase of only forty acres. ,? 

" This uniform system of surveying and dividing the public lands 
applies to all the States and Territories within which they are situated. 
Its great advantages are manifest. It insures perfect security of title 
and certainty of boundary, and consequently avoids those perplexing 
land disputes — the worst of all species of litigation — the distressing 
effects of which have been fatally experienced in some of the States. 
But these are not the only advantages, great as they unquestionably 
are. The system lays the foundation of useful civil institutions, the 
benefit of which is not confined to the present generation, but will be 
transmitted to posterity." 

Under the operation of the system thus briefly sketched, the pro- 
gress of the settlement and population of the public domain of the 
United States has been altogether unexampled. 



Many of our ablest statesmen have portrayed, in strains of the 
highest eloquence, the wonderful results of this system upon the 
comfort and happiness of the individual citizen, as well as upon the 
general growth and prosperity of the Kepublic. 

Mr. Webster thus speaks of it, and I shall quote with pleasure 
from him and other eminent Whig orators, for in these extracts it 
will be seen that they are doing homage to that policy which has 
ever marked and distinguished the Democratic party of this country: 

" Sir, I maintain Congress has acred wisely, and done its duty on this subject. I hope it 
will continue to do it. Departing from the original idea, so soon as it was found practicable 
and convenient of selling by townships, Congress has disposed of the soil in smaller an still 
smaller portions, till at length it sells in parcels of no more than eighty acres, thus putting it 
into the power of eve y man in the country, however poor, but who has health and strength, 
to bec<mie a freeholder if he desires — not of barren acres, but of rich- and fertile eoil. The 
government has per'ormed all the conditions of the grant While it has regarded tbe pub ic 
lands as a common fund and has sought to make what reasonably could be made of them as 
a source of revenue, it has also applied its l^est wsdom to sell and settle them as fast and as 
happily as possible; and, whensoever numbers would warrant it, each Territory has been 
successively admitted into the Union, with all the rights of an independent State.'' 

Mr. Clay, in a strain of still more fervent oratory, thus discants 
upon the system : 

"And if there be in the operations of this government one which more than any othe* 
displays consummate wisdom and. statesmanship, it is that system by which the public 
lands have been so successfully administered. We should pause, solemnly pause, before 
we subvert it. We should touch it hesitatingly and with the gentlest hand. The pru- 
dent management of the public lands, in the hands of the general government, will be 
more manifest by contrasting it with that of several of the States which had the disposal 
of large bodies of waste lands. Virginia possessed an ample domain west of the moun- 
tains and in the present State of Kentucky, over and above her munificent cession to the 
general government. Pressed for pecuniary means by the Revolutionary war she brought 
her wild lands during its progress into market, receiving payment in paper money. There 
were no previous surveys of the waste lands, no townships, no sections, no official defini- 
tion or description of tracts ; each purchaser made his own location, describing the land 
bought as he thought proper. These locations or descriptions were often vague and uncer- 
tain. The consequence was that the same tract was not unfrequently entered various 
times by different purchasers, so as to be literally shingled over with conflicting claims. 
The State, perhaps, sold in this way much more land than it was entitled to, but then it 
received nothing in return that was valuable : whilst the purchasers, in consequence of 
the clashing and interference between their rights, were exposed to tedious, vexatious. 
and ruinous litigation. Kentucky long and severely suffered from this cause, and is just 
emerging from the troubles brought upon her by improvident land legislation. Western 
Virginia has also suffered greatly, though not to the same extent." 

After referring to the evils of their system of management as dis- 
played in the history of G-eorgia and Kentucky, he proceeds : 

" These observations in respect to the course of the respectable States referred to, in re- 
lation to their public lands, are not prompted by any unkind feeling towards them, but to 
show the superiority of the land system of the United States." 

* # * * # ?= * S 8f * * 

' ' The progress of settlement and the improvement in the fortunes and conditions of 
individuals under the operation of this beneficent system, are as simple as they are manifest. 
Pioneers of a more adventurous character, advancing before the tide of emigration, pene- 
trate to the uninhabited regions of the west. They apply the axe to the forest, which 
falls before them, or the plough to the prairie, deeply sinking its share in the unbroken 
wild grasses in which it abounds. They build houses, plant orchards, enclose fields, cul- 
tivate the earth, and rear up families around them. Meantime the tide of emigration 
flows upon them ; their improved farms rise in value : a demand for them takes place ; 
they sell to the new comers at a great advance, and proceed further west with ample means 
to purchase from government, at reasonable prices, sufficient land for all the members of 
their familes. Another and another tide succeeds, the first pushing on westwardly the 
previous settlers, who in their turn sell out their farms, constantly augmenting in price, 
until they arrive at a fixed and stationary value. In tins way thousands and tens of thou- 



6 

sands are daily improving their circumstances and bettering their condition. I have often 
witnessed this gratifying progress. On the same farm you may sometimes behold standing 
together the first rude cabin of round and unhewn logs and wooden chimneys, the hewed 
log-house, chinked and shingled, with stone or brick chimneys, and, lastly, the comforta- 
ble brick or stone dwelling ; each denoting the different occupants of the farm, or the 
several stages of the condition of the same occupant. What other nation can boast of 
such an outlet for its increasing population — such bountiful means of promoting their 
prosperity and securing their independence ? 

"To the public lands of the United States, and especially to the existing system by 
which they are distributed with so much regularity and equity, are we indebted for these 
signal benefits in our national condition. And every consideration of duty to ourselves, 
and to posterity enjoins that we should abstain from the adoption of any wild project that 
would cast away this vast national property holden by the general government in sacred 
trust for the whole people of the United States, and forbids that we should rashly touch a 

system which has been so successfully tested by experience." 

# # -& * * f . "_'.'* * * * * 

it Such is a rapid outline of this invaluable national property, of the system which 
regulates its management and distribution, and of the effects of that system. "We might 
here pause and wonder that there should be a disposition with any to waste or throw away 
this great resource, or to abolish a system fraught with so many munificent advantages. 
Nevertheless there are such who, impatient with the slow and natural operation of wise 
laws, -have put forth various pretensions and projects concerning the public lands within 
a few years past." 

QUANTITY OF PUBLIC LAND AND ITS ACTUAL PRESENT VALUE. 

The entire area of the public domain is estimated at about 
1,584,000,000 acres. Of that amount there is within the States, ex- 
clusive of California, 471,892,439 acres. 

This immense quantity of unsold and unoccupied public land has 
led to many erroneous estimates of its true value, and has suggested 
many of those wild and disorganizing schemes for its disposition which 
have been forced upon the public attention of late years. Kegarding 
the entire public domain as productive capital, available for present 
and immediate use, the most visionary and extravagant hopes have 
been excited as to the benefits to be derived from its division and dis- 
tribution. These errors have been exposed with such marked ability 
in a report from the Committee on Public Lands, submitted to the 
Senate in January, 1840, that I shall take the liberty of presenting 
again, before the public mind, its clear and irresistible reasoning. 
That report, it is true, was made prior to our purchase of that portion 
of the public domain which lies within the State of California and the 
Territories of Utah and Kew Mexico, but that fact does not, in the 
very slightest degree, affect the force of the argument, or even vary its 
calculations and conclusions. The average annual proceeds of the 
public domain do not materially vary now from what they were prior 
to those important additions to our territorial possessions, 

* " It appears from a report from the Commissioner of the General 
Land Office, (see "Doc. 46, 3d sess. 25th Congress,) that the whole 
quantity in acres of the public domain, on the 30th September, 
1838, to which the Indian title was not extinguished, amounted to 
766,000,000, in round numbers. There were, at the same time, as 
appears by the same report, in the States and Territories, 319,000,000 
of acres to which the Indian title was extinguished, making the whole 
public domain in the aggregate, at that time, to be 1,085,000,000 of 
acres ; from which about 5,000,000 of acres may be deducted for sales 

*The report from which this extract is taken, though made by Mr. Norvell, of Michigan* 
was written by Mr. Calhoun. 



since made, leaving now about 1,080,000,000 of acres. It appears that, 
on the 1st of January last, there were, in the new States, 154,000,000 
of acres to which the Indian titles were extinguished, and 9,500,000 
acres to which the Indian title was not extinguished ; making, in the 
aggregate, 163,500,000 acres. From this deduct, for disputed grants, 
many of which are large, to which the right of the government may 
not be established, 3,500,000 acres, which would leave 160,000,000 
subject to the operation of this bill, being less than one-sixth of the 
whole public domain. 

" Those who have not reflected on the subject are liable to form very 
erroneous estimates of the true value of the public lands. It is very 
natural to conclude that, as none are sold for less than $1 25 per acre, 
the 160,000,000 of acres unsold, in the new States, are worth 
$200,000,000 ; but such a conclusion would be utterly fallacious. If 
the whole could be sold at once, at that price, for cash in hand, or on 
■perfectly safe security, with interest, and without expense, the conclu- 
sion would be correct ; but such is far from being the case. They can 
only be sold at that price, through a long period of years, in small 
portions at a time, and at a heavy expense, all of which must be 
taken into the estimate to form a correct opinion of their real value, 
or, to express the idea differently, their actual present value. 

" In order to determine what that really is, it will be necessary to 
assume what would probably be the gross annual proceeds of the sales 
of the public lands embraced by the bill, on the supposition that the 
present price, and the land system, as it now stands, will be continued. 
The committee are fully aware that the assumption must be, in a great 
measure, conjectural. There are not, and cannot be, from the nature 
of the subject, any certain data on which to rest calculation. All 
that can be done is, to assume a sum sufficiently liberal to guard 
against the possibility of an under estimate ; and, proceeding on that 
principle, after a full consideration of the whole ground, the commit- 
tee have come to the conclusion that it would be a liberal assumption 
to take the sum of $2,500,000 as their average gross annual income, 
on the supposition of the continuance of the system till the whole shall 
be sold. The assumption supposes that the whole of the lands em- 
braced in the bill will be sold at $1 25 per acre, and that the average 
sales annually will yield $2,500,000, till the last acre is sold ; an as- 
sumption which all, the least conversant with the subject, will readily 
allow to be ample. 

" Taking, then, that sum as the annual gross income, it is clear that 
the real value of the lands in question cannot exceed a sum which, at 
the legal interest of 6 percent., would give an annual income of 
$2,500,000 ; or, to express it differently, cannot exceed the present 
value of a permanent annuity of that amount — that is, a fraction over 
$41,000,000. 

f. So far is clear, and it is equally so that it must be less than that 
sum. The reason is obvious : to derive an income of $2,500,000 from 
lands at $1 25 per acre, there must be annually sold 2,000,000 of acres, 
which would dispose, at that rate, of the whole 160,000,000 of acres 
in eighty years. It follows, of course, that their true present value, 
instead of being worth a permanent annuity of $2,500,000, would be 
worth one of that amount for eighty vears only, which is little more 



8 

than $34,000,000. That sum, then, it is manifest, would be the true 
present value of all the unsold lands in the new States, on the data as- 
sumed, provided they could he sold without expense, trouble, or cost 
by the government ; but as that cannot be, it becomes necessary to 
determine what deduction ought to be made on that account to ascer- 
tain what, in fact, is their real present value. 

"In determining this, the committee have taken experience as their 
guide. They have carefully ascertained, under the actual operation 
of the system, to the present time, what deductions ought to be made, 
under all the various heads, as incident to the system, on the actual 
quantity of land sold by the government, and have apportioned them 
rateably on the lands to be sold, on the supposition that what remains 
to be sold will be subject to as great a reduction, in proportion, as that 
which has been; in other words, that the administration of the public 
lands hereafter, if the present system should be continued as it stands, 
would be neither more nor less economical or prudent than it has been. 
In making their estimates, they have included under expense not 
only what is appropriately comprehended .under it, but whatever goes 
to diminish the net income from the lands — such as grants and dona- 
tions other than the 16th section reserved for schools, the two and 
three per cent, fund reserved out of the sales for internal improve- 
ment, the expenditures on internal improvement incident to the 
public domain, but not charged to that fund, and the increased ex- 
pense of legislation. 

iC The result is, that the expense of the management of the public 
lands embraced in the bill (on the supposition that the administration 
will be neither more nor less economical than the past, and that they 
will yield annually the sum supposed, and of course be sold in the 
period assigned) would amount to a fraction over $44,000,000, which, 
divided by eighty, the number of years required to dispose of the 
lands, would give $550,000 as the average annual expense. This 
sum, regarded as an annuity for eighty years, and estimated as a 
present charge, would mak a fraction less than $7,600,000, which, 
deducted from the sum of $34,000,000, the present value of the lands, 
without estimating expenses, would give for the actual present value 
of the lands the sum of $26,400,000. 

U But as small as this sum may appear to many, the committee be- 
lieve that it is over, rather than under, the true estimate. It makes 
no allowance for defalcations and losses incident to the management 
of the fiscal concerns of the land system, and assumes that every acre 
will be sold at $1 25 per acre, which no one can expect who will re- 
collect that a large portion is sterile and worthless, consisting of pine 
barrens, swamps, unproductive prairies, and stony and mountainous 
tracts, which are at present unsalable at any price, and will be so for 
a long time to come. To this may be added that more than one half 
has been in market for five, ten, fifteen, and twenty years and up- 
wards without being sold, and are the remnants left, after the re- 
peated selections of all that were considered as valuable, even under 
the late rage for speculation, stimulated to the greatest excess by a 
bloated currency. Against this it is admitted that there is a con- 
siderable quantity not yet surveyed and brought into market, of which 



a portion may sell for more than $1 25 per acre ; but experience 
shows that the quantity sold above that price is so small that its effect 
on the general average price does not exceed 2J cents per acre, and is 
too inconsiderable to take into the estimate. 

(t Taking, then, all circumstances into consideration, the committee 
feel assured that the result to which they have been brought is too 
high rather than too low , but they do not deem it ^material whether 
it be, in truth, a few millions more or less. Their object is not per- 
fect precision, but to give a correct general impression of the value of 
the lands embraced in the bill, in order to correct the utterly fallacious 
conception which even many of the well informed entertain on the 
subject. So long as the value of the lands embraced in the bill is es- 
timated at hundreds of millions of dollars, instead of the few millions 
which they are really worth, so long it will be impossible to obtain 
for the measure which it proposes that impartial and deliberate con- 
sideration necessary to a correct decision, and hence the necessity of 
removing such erroneous impressions preliminary to the discussion of 
the general merits of the bill, to which the committee will now pro- 
ceed." 

Extraordinary efforts have been made within the last few months, 
by the opposition papers of this district and State, to exite discontent 
by vivid and reiterated declarations of the gross mismanagement of 
the public domain. Tabular statements have been paraded before 
your eyes of the enormous donations made by Congress to the new 
States for school, railroad, and other purposes. Editors and orators 
have dwelt with real or afft cted indignation upon the reckless squan- 
dering of the public lands, the extraordinary favors shown to the new 
States and the injustice done to the old, the rapid decline of Virginia 
and the unparalleled growth of the northwestern States, all the result 
of a concerted movement, originating in party purposes, and all de- 
signed to prepare the public mind for a levival of the oft-repeated and 
discarded policy of distribution. 

That there is not some just ground for discontent with the legisla- 
tion of Congress for the last seven or ei^ht years I do not deny. One 
might naturally infer such to be my opinion at least, for my vote has 
been uniformly arrayed against every bill disposing in any form of 
the public lands submitted to the body of which I was a member, 
during the six years of ray service. But it will be found, upon exami- 
nation, that much of this clamor grows out of a misconception of the 
true character of the legislation of Congress, or is ascribable to natural 
and unavoidable causes, over which Congress and human government 
can have no control. , 

I will examine separately the three classes of grants, which are the 
theme of greatest denunciation by the opposition press, and submit to 
your consideration the reasons of just policy upon which they respec- 
tively rest, and you will thus have the means of deciding for yourselves 
whether you have br en robbed or pluudered to the extent that you are 
led to suppose by those vigilant sentinels, who claim now to be the 
only safe depositories of the public interest. 



10 



SCHOOL LANDS. 

The new States, created out of the territory of the United States, 
have always had, at the period of their admission, large vacant and 
unappropriated public lands within their limits. Coming into the 
confederacy, as members of the federal alliance, with all the rights of 
independent States, subject to the Constitution of the United States, 
would have the unquestioned power to tax for State purposes all the 
lands within their jurisdiction, whether belonging to the federal govern- 
ment or to individuals. To guard against this exercise of State power, 
it has been the practice of the government, from our earliest history, 
to enter into a compact with the State seeking admission into the 
Union, by which the United States agree to transfer to the State one 
section of land in each township for " the use of schools," and five per 
cent, of the net proceeds of the sale of the public lands lying within the 
State, alter deducting all expenses incident to the same, for public 
roads. 

" Provided that the foregoing propositions herein offered are on the 
condition, that the said convention which shall form the constitution 
of said State shall provide, by a clause in said constitution, or an 
ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that 
said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil 
within the same by the United States, nor with any regulations Con- 
gress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to bona fide 
purchasers thereof; and that no tax shall be imposed on lands the 
property of the United States ; and that in no case shall non-resident 
proprietors be taxed higher than residents." 

It will be seen that the grant of school lands, &c, is made by Con- 
gress as a consideration for the attainment of three important objects: 

1st. That the State shall never interfere with the primary disposal 
of the soil within the same by the United States. 

2d. That no tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the 
United States. 

3d. That in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher 
than residents. 

The importance of those stipulations to the United States may be 
at once seen by reference to the fact, that we have at this time (exclu- 
sive of California) 471,892,489 acres of land lying within the jurisdic- 
tion of the States, which is altogether exempt from taxation. As Mr. 
Webster remarked in January, 1839, " whilst held by the United 
States these lands are not subject to State taxation. They contribute 
nothing to the burdens thrown on other lands. Here is a great pro- 
prietor in a State, holding large territory, exempt from common 
burdens." 

It is also important in securing to those citizens of Virginia, and 
other States, who may think proper to purchase, but do not find it 
convenient to reside in the new States, immunity from unjust and un- 
equal taxation. 

SWAMP LANDS. 

In almost every State or Territory of the United States, where the 
government holds public lands, and more particularly in the southern 



11 



States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Florida, are found large 
parcels of it overflowed by water. These lands are entirely unfit for 
cultivation, indeed not susceptible of being surveyed, and serve but 
to infect the States in which they are situated with disease, not con- 
fined to the lands themselves, but spreading far and wide in the 
adjacent country, and depreciating the domain belonging to the gov- 
ernment within the reach of the miasma arising from them. The 
existence of such a nuisance in the States was for many years a subject 
of loud complaint. Congress at length yielded to these just complaints, 
and by act of the 28th of September, 1850, granted to the States in 
which they were located " the whole of those swamp and overflowed 
lands made unfit thereby for cultivation," * * * " provided, 
that the proceeds of said lands, whether from sale or by direct appro- 
priation in kind, shall be applied exclusively, as far as necessary, to 
the purpose of reclaiming said lands." The States would, doubtless, 
have much preferred that the general government had retained the 
lands and undertaken itself the work of drainage. But in the absence 
of any such improbable action by the federal government, it was not 
to be endured that these lands should remain in their then con- 
dition — unfit for sale — destructive of the value of the adjacent public 
domain ; and a source of disease and death to the inhabitants of the 
States. So manifest seemed the propriety of this measure, granting 
the " swamp lands" to the States for that purpose, that the bill 
passed the Senate without a dissenting voice, whilst in the House it 
passed by a vote of 120 yeas, to 53 nays ; but eight southern men, 
and amongst them but one member, from Virginia, voting against it. 

RAILROAD GRANTS. 

The policy and results of these grants by Congress have been so 
clearly exhibited in the annual report of the Secretary of the Interior 
of December 5, 1853, that it will only be necessary to take from it 
the following extract: 

" In the Territories and new States, where many of the public lands remain for a long 
period unsold, liberal grants should be made for those great highways, which to a certain 
extent may be considered local in their character, though general in their influence, and 
not conflicting with the interests of the old States. In this way, without any expendi- 
ture of money, the general government can greatly increase the value of the public 
domain. It has never made such a donation without being fully repaid. The principle of 
granting alternate sections and selling those reserved at double the ordinary price, has 
been found by experience to be most salutary. By reason of the improvemenls made 
with such grants large tracts of land that had long lain waste have been brought into 
market and found a ready sale ; the surrounding country has been peopled ; the revenue 
has been augmented by the increased consumption of foreign merchandise ; and the State 
in which the improvements have been thus made, and not unfrequently the adjacent 
States, have been largely benefitted. Without these donations and consequent improve- 
ments some of the finest portions of the new States would have continued a wilderness ; 
lands that had been for fifteen or twenty years in the market might have remained as 
much longer unsold, and thus the prosperity and advancement of the whole country 
greatly retaided. The loss to the government would have been serious without any cor- 
responding benefit. The true policy is to bring the lands into market, and by all legiti- 
mate means dispose of them as speedily as possible : justice to those who have been in- 
duced to settle in the new States and Territories and the interest of the government alike 
demand it. The strongest political and economical considerations, therefore, dictate this 
course. 

"On the 20th of September, 1850, a grant of lands was made to the States of Illinois, 
Mississipi, and Alabama, to aid in the construction of the great central railroad from 



12 

Chicago to Mobile. To afford these States an opportunity of making their selections the- 
lands along the supposed routes of the road were for a short period withdrawn from mar- 
ket, most of them being of little value to the States in which they were, or to the general 
government, until the grants were made and it was ascertained the road would be con- 
structed ; but then they were bought up with avidity and are now considered as most 
choice and valuable. 

: 'The Illinois Central Railroad Company was incorporated, and the route of the road 
and its branches within that State designated by an act of the legislature in February, 
1851. During the hn If year ending December 31, 1850, the quantity of land sold and 
located with bounty land warrants in the district traversed by the road was 342,487 -j^. 
acres. The alternate sections reserved to the United States were released from reser- 
vation and brought into market, in July, August, and September, 1S52, and during that 
and the next succeeding quarter the sales and locations amounted to 1,274,522 -, s s ff acres; 
showing an increase over the corresponding half year next preceding the location of the 
road of ^932, 034 T Vor acres. 

' The unselected lands in the Augusta and Columbus districts of the State of Mississippi 
were restored to market in the month of September last, and notwithstanding the sales 
in those districts had been for many years very limited, the lands thus restored met with 
ready sales at enhanced prices. The quantity sold at Augusta in the month of September, 
1849, was only 424 acres, and in the same month in the years 1850-'51-'52, much less ; 
and yet, in five days in September last, after the route of the road had been established 
and the alternate sections designated by the State, 19,530 acres were sold for $34,056 ; 
being $9,643 more than their aggrega'e value at the minimum price. In the Columbus 
district, in the short space of 12 days, in the month of September last, 22,504 acres were 
disposed of; whereas, in all the month of September, 1849, the quantity sold was only 
2,358 acres. 

"The lands withdrawn from market in June, 1852, to enable the State of Missouri to 
locate the routes and select the lands granted to her by the act approved the 10th of that 
month for the construction of certain railroads, were lestored to market on the 5th of 
July last, and between that day and the 30th of September following 318,839 acres were 
sold ; being nearly 150,000 acres more than were sold in the corresponding quarters in 
1850-51, and '52 combined A like effect has been produced upon the sales of the alter- 
nate sections reserved to the United States, wherever similar grants have been made. 

*#*&* £ # * * « # 

" There can be as little doubt of the constitutionality of such grants as of their pro- 
priety. The right to donate a part for the enhancement of the value of the residue can 
no longer be questioned. The principle has been adopted and acted upon for nearly thirty 
years ; and since experience has &h«»wn it to be productive of so much good, no sound 
reason is perceived why it should now be abandoned. It has been of incalculable import- 
ance to the Great West, and either directly or indirectly to all the States. 

# * * » s * * " * * s # 

;d Something is manifestly due to the hardy pioneer, without whose labor, industry, and 
enterprise the West would now be of little moment. No one who has not been an eye- 
witness can appreciate the h^rd^hips and privations endured by him, and government 
should certainly not hesitate to aid him, especially when it can be done without detriment 
to the other States, or to any other interests." 

I will now proceed to examine some of the most prominent of the 
schemes or plans which, as Mr. Clay has well remarked, " restless 
men, impatient of the slow operation of wise laws, are constantly 
throwing before the popular mind in reference to the public lands." 
The first I shall notice is the scheme for a 

DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC LANDS AMONG THE STATES. 

Several plans having this object in view have been laid before Con- 
gress during the last lew years ; and although at times pressed with 
some seeming earnestness, they have attracted but little favor, and 
have been soon abandoned. The practical difficulties in the way of any 
fair and equal division of the public domain — the striking imperfec- 
tion and injustice of all the schemes so far submitted, the pernicious 
consequences which must flow from such an unwise measure if 
adopted, and the constitutional impediments to the execution of all 



such plans — have made them rather the subject of just ridicule than 
of grave discussion, being regarded rather as bids for local popu- 
larity at home than designed by their projectors as serious efforts of 
legislative policy. 

Mr. Webster, in his celebrated speech delivered in the Senate in 
1829 upon Foote's resolution, has placed the duties and obligations of 
the national government on this subject in its true light. After re- 
citing the conditions and trusts upon which the federal government 
held this public property, and for the fulfillment of which the national 
faith was and is pledged, he says : 

"'One of these conditions or trusts, as I hare already said, was that the lands should be 
*old and settled at such time and manner as Congress shall direct. The government has 
.always felt itself bound in regard to sale and settlement to exercise its own best judgment, 
and not to transfer that discretion to others. It has not felt itself at liberty to dispose of the 
soil, therefore, in large masses to individuals, thus leaving to thera the time and manner of 
settlement. It had stipulated to use its own judgment' : 

Again, in the same speech, he said : 

*' I look upon the public lands as a public fund, and that we are no more authorized to give 
them away gratuitously than to giiro away gratuitously the money in the treasury." 

Again, in 1837. he repeats, with still greater emphasis, the same 
ideas : 

f,i Now, I ask where is the power to make this grant? If we look upon it as a cession for 
the benefit of the States in which the lands lie, if it was & gratuitous grant in any degree, 
whence is the power obtained to authorize Congress to give away the public lands? Well, 
the answer to this question might be, that the proposition is not to make a gift of it, as cer- 
tain returns were to be made to Congress by the new States. Now, by the Constitution of 
the country, the trust, the disposition of the public lands was conferred on Congress; and I. 
ask, is it possible that any man can maintain the proposition that as they were placed in 
their h^nds, as belonging to the whole people of the United States, they could transfer the 
general disposition of them? It appears to me that they might just as well entertain this 
proposition as to farm out the custom-house in New York on certain terms. 

" Nor do I know that Congress has any more authority to give away the public lands than 
the proceeds of a custom-house on particular stipulations; nor can they surrender the control 
of it any more than they can assign to others the power of collecting the revenue of the 
custom-house in Boston, or elsewhere. I see, therefore, objections insurmountable, whether 
they assume the shape of a gratuitous cession or a trust. In either case it transcends the 
power of Congress, It is to make the public la?ids a eomm<m fund for the benefit of the whole 
people of the Union. The great object is to sell the public lands gradually; and whilst it is 
in a state of ownership I have always held that Congress might make it more valuable by the 
creation of railroads, canals, and other improvements of this sort. I have felt no difficulty 
therefore in supporting grants to accomplish these objects, because it was a very efficient 
mode of inceasmg the value of the public domain. " 

Mr, Clay, in a report made to the Senate in 1832, said: 

:£ By the clear and positive terms of the acts of cession a great public national trust was 
created and assumed by the general government. It became solemnly bound to hold and 
administer the lands ceded as a common fund for the use and benefit of all the States, and 
for no other use or purpose wjbaiever. To divert it from the common benefit for which it 
was conveyed would be a violation of the trust." 

But apart from the constitutional difficulties so apparent and so 
clearly set forth by Messrs. Webster and Clay, how would it be pos- 
sible to make any partition of the public lands, that could be at all 
satisfactory to Virginia and the other Atlantic States? According to 
every bill which has been submitted on the subject — and indeed from 
the very necessity of the case, the portion coming to the new States 
would have to be assigned to them within their respective jurisdic- 
tions. And would Virginia and her sister States of the South be 
content to have hers allotted to her in Utah, New Mexico, Oregon, or 
Washington, or the other distant or remote Territories. If any such 



14 

partition were made, such would be the inevitable assignment of the 
remote lands. And if the share of Virginia were assigned to her in 
some distant territory, in what manner would she make it available? 
It now costs the Federal Government near one million of dollars an- 
nually to keep up its Land Office. What would be the cost of thirty- 
one land offices kept up by the several States? It now costs the Fed- 
eral Government some eleven millions of dollars to maintain one army 
to defend her land and protect her settlers. What would it cost to 
maintain thirty-one armies for the same purpose ? Mr. Clay, in his 
celebrated report, presents other pernicious consequences which would 
result from this scheme of dividing the lands amongst the States : 

" The lands are now sold under one uniform plan, regulated and controlled by a single 
legislative authority, and the practical operation is perfectly understood. If they were 
transferred to the States, the subsequent disposition would be according to laws emanating 
from various legislative sources. Competition would probably arise between the States in 
the terms which they would offer to purchasers. Each State would be desirous of inviting 
the greatest number of emigrants, not only for the laudable purpose of populating rapidly 
its own territories, but with the view to the acquisition of funds to enable it to fulfil its 
engagements to the general government. Collisions between the States would probably 
arise, and their injurious consequences may be imagined. A spirit of hazardous specula- 
tion would be engendered. Various schemes in the new States would be put afloat to sell 
or divide the public lands. Companies and combinations would be formed in this country, 
if not in foreign countries, presenting gigantic and tempting but delusive projects, and 
the history of legislation in some of the States of the Union admonishes us that a too 
ready ear is sometimes given by a majority, in a legislative assembly, to such projects." 

But I will not pursue this reckless and revolutionary scheme further. 
Such politicians as Messrs. Carlisle and Bennett may find such hob- 
bies useful in riding successfully over a congressional district. But 
the sober judgement of the country cannot regard them otherwise than 
.as either visionary or wicked. 

I now approach the examination of another scheme, which being 
less radical, revolting and disorganizing, has more supporters than the 
preceeding ; but which is obnoxious to many of the objections which 
apply to a partition of the public lands. I mean the — 

DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE PUBLIC LANDS. 

This measure, as a practical question of public policy, was first 
brought before the country in 1832. There were peculiar circum- 
stances in the then condition of the country, which caused it to be 
looked upon with favor when first proposed. But the able and search- 
ing scrutiny to which it was subjected by the statesmen of that period, 
soon revealed the pernicious principles which^ay concealed under its 
imposing exterior, and after a fitful struggle often or twelve years it 
passed from the political issues of the day, and from that period it 
has hardly been deemed to possess vitality sufficient to render it 
worthy of a passing newspaper paragraph. 

It has recently been revived by the opposition press, as a political 
issue peculiarly adapted to the condition and circumstances of Vir- 
ginia. We hear not a loord of it beyond the limits of this common- 
wealth. In every other State it reposes in the same quiet grave in 
which it was deposited in 1844. But here in this State, where, at 
no period of its history, it ever obtained the slightest countenance and 
avor, it has alone been deemed worthy of resurrection. 



15 

To whom are we indebted for its revival ? To any spontaneous 
movement of the popular mind ? No ! To the action of any organ- 
ized political body ? No. But to the wild and erratic editorials of 
the Richmond Whig. Month after month was it occupied in drum- 
ming, urging and pressing this question upon the public mind before 
the slightest response was heard to its rabid and fiery appeals. But 
at length the admirable bearing whrth it might have in dividing and 
distracting the overgrown Democratic party of this State was seen — 
and instantly it was seized upon by every opposition press in the State, 
and made the rallying cry of the approaching election. 

It was believed that the condition of our Treasury, the high rate 
of our taxes, and the just desire to complete many railroad projects 
now lying in an unfinished condition, would render the people not 
very scrupulous as to the means by which their burdens might be 
lessened, and their improvements finished. They flattered them- 
selves that the occasion was particularly opportune to break down the 
Democratic organization of this State. It was known that that party 
had, for a quarter of a century, arrayed itself against the expediency 
and constitutionality of the distribution policy ; and if, under the 
pressure of taxation, and the eager thirst for public improvement, they 
would now enlist the people in these views, they saw, in such a 
movement, the certain means of destruction to that party which had 
made the opposite doctrine cardinal principles of its political faith. 

The thin disguise of attempting to treat a fundamental canon of 
the Democratic policy as no party question, and of postponing their 
own aspirations to those of some Democrat who would side with their 
policy, was only confirmatory of the motives in which the agitation- 
had its recent origin. For without the aid of the Democrats — with- 
out detaching a segment of the party from the main body — how could 
they accomplish their cherished object, the destruction and disorgani- 
zation of the party itself. 

Does any man who advocates the distribution policy, for one mo- 
ment believe that we shall ever hear of it again after the approaching 
spring election is over, unless it be referred to simply as the sprine sprint • 
in which many an incautious Democrat has been caught? Does he be- 
lieve there is the slightest chance of carrying such a measure through 
the national legislature. From whence is it to derive its support? 
Not from a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, or a Demo- 
cratic House of Representatives. For they all stand pledged by the^ 
Democratic platform to regard it both as unwise and unconstitutional^ 
Not from the representatives of the land States, who have been C n "- 
sistent in their hostility to the policy. Not from the representatives 
of the planting States, who regard it but as the harbinger of a return 
to high protective duties. It has no prospect of support from any 
quarter except the manufacturing States of New England, and they 
constitute too small a force to justify the belief that they can succeed 
in the establishment of that policy. 

Looking, therefore, to the time and source of this movement to 

the impracticability of its success — to the insignificant amount that 

would be received from distribution if it could be accomplished 

and its utter inadequacy to any of the objects contemplated by it. 



16 

I do not feel that I am uncharitable in saying, that the sole purpose, 
real, sought or anticipated by its originators, is to distract and divide 
the Democratic party of this State. 

But whilst these are my own firm convictions, I will proceed to ex- 
amine it, not as a party question, but as a question of national policy 
and constitutional law, and address myself to the reason and judg- 
ment of all men in this district, totally irrespective of party. . 

IS DISTRIBUTION CONSTITUTIONAL^ 

The first inquiry of every southern man, in the discussion of a 
question of federal policy, is whether the measure is in accordance 
with the Constitution of the United States, an instrument to which he 
looks with peculiar reverence, and which all who take part in the 
government are sworn to support. 

The constitutional view of this subject has been treated by Mr. Cal- 
houn with such consummate ability, and with such brevity and pre- 
cision, that I cannot afford a richer treat to my readers than by 
incorporating it into this address. 

SPEECH OF MR. CALHOUN, JANUARY. 23, 1841. 

. "Whether the government can constitutionally distribute the revenue from the puhlie 
lands among the States must depend on the fact whether they belong to them in their 
united federal character, or individually and separately If in the former, it is manifest 
that the government, a* their common agent or trustee, can have no right to distribute 
among them, for their individual, separate use, a fund derived from property held in their 
united and federal character, without a special power for that purpose which is not pre- 
tended. A position so clear of itself and resting on the established principles of law, 
when applied to individuals holding property in like manner, needs no illustration. If, 
on the contrary, they belong to the States in their individual and separate character, then 
the government would not only have the right but would be bound to apply the revenue 
to the separate use of the States. So far is incontrovertible, which presents the question : 
In which of the two characters are the lands held by the States? 

"To give a satisfactory answer to this question it will be necessary to distinguish be- 
tween the lands that have been ceded by the States and those that have been purchased 
by the government out of the common funds of the Union. 

" The principal cessions were made by Virginia and Georgia. The former of all the tract 
of country between the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the lakes, including the States of Ohio, 
Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, and the Territory of Wisconsin ; and the latter, of the 
tract included in Alabama and Mississippi. I shall begin with the cession of Virginia, as 
at is on that the advocates for distribution mainly rely to establish the right. 

M I hold in my hand an extract of all that portion of the Virginia deed of cession which 
has any bearing on the point at issue, taken from the volume lyin^ on the table before 
me, with the place marked, and to which any one desirous of examining the deed may 
refer. r lhe cession is ' to the United States in Congress assembled, for the benefit of said 
Stales.' Every word implies the States in their united federal character. That is the 
meaning of the phrase United States. It stands in contradistinction to the States taken 
separately and individually ; and if there could be, by possibility, any doubt on that point, 
it would be removed by the expression 'in Congress assembled — an assemblage widen 
constituted the ven knot that united them. I regard the execution of such a deed to the 
Untied States, so assembled, so conclusive that the cession was to them in their united and 
aggregate character, in contradistinction to their individual and separate character, and, 
by necessary consequence, that the lands so ceded belonged to them in their foimer and 
not in their latter chaiacter, that I am at a loss for words to make it clearer. To deny it, 
would be to deny that there is any truth in language. 

" But strong as this is, it is not all. 'I he deed proceeds and says, that all the lands so 
ceded 'shall be considered a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United 
States as have become, »>r shall become, members of the Co?)fedcration or federal alliance of 
said Slates, Virginia inclusive,' and concludes by saying, 'and shall be faithfully and bona 
fide dispo ed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever.' If it wcie 
possible to raise a doubt before, those lull, clear, and explicit terms would dispel it. It \e 



17 



impossible for language to be clearer. To be ' considered a common fund' is an expressioa 
directly in contradistinction to separate or individual, and is, by necessary implication, 
as clear a negative of the latter as if it had been positively expressed. This common fund 
to ' be for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become, or shall become, 
members of the confederation or federal alliance.' That is as clear as language can express 
it. for their common use in their united federal character, Virginia being included as the 
grantor, out of abundant caution." 

"The concluding words of the grant are ' shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for 
that use, and no other use or purpose whatsoever. ' For that use — that is, the common 
use of the States, in their capacity of members of the confederation or federal alliance — 
and no other ; as positively forbidding to use the fund to be derived from the lands for 
the separate use of the States, or to be distributed among them for their separate or indi- 
vidual use, as proposed by this amendment, as it is possible for words to do." 

****** -see-* 

,l The residue of the public lands, including Florida, and all the region I eyond the Mis- 
sissippi, extending to the Pacific ocean, and constituting by far the greater part, stands on 
a different footing Ihey were purchased out of the common funds of the Union collected 
by taxes, and belong, beyond all question, to the people of the United States in their 
federal and aggregate capacity. This has not been and cannot be denied ; and 3 et it is 
proposed to distribute the common fund derived from the sales of these, as well as from 
the ceded lands, in direct violation of the admitted principle, th it the agent or trustee of 
a common concern has no right without express authority to apply the joint funds to the 

separate use and benefit of its individual members." 

#*#**#»*♦*• 

"The Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) and, as I now understand the Senator from 
Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster,) agree, that the revenue from taxes can be applied only to 
the objects specifically enumerated in the Consti ution. Thus repudiating the general 
welfare principle, as applied to the money power, so far as the revenue may be derived 
from that source. To this extent they profess to be good State Rights Jeffersonum Re- 
publicans. Now, sir, I would be happy to be informed by either of the able Senators, by 
what political alchemy the revenue from taxes, by being vested inland, or other property, 
can, when again turned into revenue by sales, be entirely freed from all the constituti nal 
restrictions to which they were liable before the investment, according to their own con- 
fessions. A satisfactory explanation of so curious and apparently incomprehensible a pro- 
cess would be a treat. " 

" When I look. Mr. President, to what induced the States, and especially Virginia, to 
make this magnificent cession to the Union, and the high and patriotic motives urged by 
the old Congress to induce them to do it, and turn to what is now proposed, I am struck 
with the contrast and the great mutation to which human affairs are subject. The great 
and patriotic men of former times regarded it as essential to the consummation of the 
Union and the preservation of the public faith that the land^ should be ceded as a com- 
mon fund : but now men distinguished for their ability and influence are striving with all 
their might to undo their holy work Yet, sir; distribution and cession are the very re- 
verse, in character and effect ; the tendency of one is to union, and the other to disunion. 
The widest of modern statesnn n, and who had the keenest and deepest glance into futurity, 
(Edmund Burke,) truly said that the revenue is the State ; to which 1 add, that to distribute 
the revenue, in a confederated community amongst rs members, is to dissolve the com- 
munity — that is, with us, the Union — as time will prove, if ever this fatal measure should 
be adopted." 

Having disposed of the constitutional question, the next inquiry is, 
"What are the objections to it on the score of expediency and sound, 
policy? 

They are numerous. 

1. Distribution is deceptive. — Ir. is an imposture upon the public 
mind. It seeks to produce the impression that it is giving money to 
the people, when it is, in fact, taking money from them. It professes 
to lessen taxes, when it, in fact, increases them. We have two govern- 
ments to support — a federal government and a State government. 
They are both supported by taxation. The first by indirect, the lat- 
ter by direct taxation. If you withdraw the proceeds of the public 
lands from the national treasury, to distribute them among the 



w 

States, you must supply the deficiency by taxation in the form of 
duties upon consumption, The result of such an operation, therefore, 
is to put money in the hands of the legislature for State expenditures, 
whilst the farmer and mechanic must, with superadded costs, repay 
the amount by increased price upon every article of foreign growth 
and production which he buys from the stores. 

General Jackson clearly perceived and exposed this imposture, in 
his message of December, 1833, in which he assigns his reasons for 
disapproving the bill. He said : 

** It is difficult to perceive what advantages would accrue to the old States or the new from 
the system of distribution which this bill proposes, if it were otherwise unobjectionable. It 
requires no argument to prove that if thiee millions of dollars a year, or any other sum, shall 
be taken out of the treasury by this bill for distribution, it must be replaced by the same sum 
collected from the people by some other means. The old States will receive annually a sum 
of money from the treasury, but they will pay in a larger sum, together with the expenses of 
collection and distribution." 

Mr. Buchanan, our present distinguished Chief Magistrate, with 
equal clearness, exposed its trickery in 1841 : 

" But the absurdity of the measure at this time did not stop here. This bill was made the 
pretext or the reason why we should pass the tax or revenue bill. The deficiency created by the 
one bill, it is said, must be supplied by the other. And how supplied? By a tax of 20 per 
cent, upon coffee and tea — articles which the habits of the people of Pennsylvania had rendered 
necessar es of life, and which entered largely into the consumption of every family, poor or 
rich. While that bill thus taxed cotiee and tea, it left railroad iron imported for tue use of 
corporations free of duty ; and yet, strange as it might seem, a Pennsylvania senator was 
asked to violate the exprpss language of his instructions, and vote for the land bill which it 
was avowed would render this odious tax bill absolutely necessary. The annual distribution 
under the land bill would be equal to but a little more than an eleven-penny-bit to each indi- 
vidual in Pennsylvania, whilst the tux to which each of them would be subjected, in conse- 
quence of its passage, on the articles of coffee and tea alone, must considerably exceed that 
amount. This, truly, was wise legislation!" 

2. Distribution impairs the simplicity and economy of the State gov- 
ernments. — It stimulates extravagant expenditures — increased indebt- 
edness — and will result in additional burdens upon the people, in the 
form of higher and more oppressive taxation. Does any man for a 
moment believe that the annual distribution paid by the federal gov- 
ernment to the States would be applied to lessen the existing taxes? 
Does he not know that small as the distributive share of Virginia 
might be, it would only be used as a stimulant to new and larger ap- 
propriations ? Why are all the unfinished railroads now so clamor- 
ous for distribution? Why are the people on the line of these pro- 
jected improvements so anxious for the triumph of the policy? Is it 
not because they believe and avow that the fund, if received, will be 
applied to the construction of these roads, or made the basis upon 
which new State bonds would be issued ? 

General Jackson, whose keen sagacity and genuine fidelity to the 
interests of the people cannot be questioned, has left upon the record 
the following emphatic declaration of his views on this aspect of the 
subject. In his eighth annual message, he said : 

" All will admit that the simplicity and economy of the State governments mainly de- 
pends on the fact th.it money has to be supplied to support them by the same men, or 
their agents, who vote it away in appropriations. Hence, when there are extravagant and 
wasteful appropriations, there must be a corresponding increase in taxes ; and the people, 
becoming awakened, will necessarily scrutinize the character of measures which thus, 
increase their burdens. By the watchful eye of self interest, the agents of the people in 
the State governments are repressed and kept within the limits of a jusst economy. But if 
the necessity •** levying the taxes be taken from those who make the appropriations and 



19 

thrown upon a more distant and less responsible set of public agents, who have power to 
approach the people by an indirect and stealthy taxation, there is reason to fear that 
prodigality will soon supersede those characteristics which have thus far made us look with 
so much pride and confidence to the State governments as the main stay of our Union and 
liberties. The State legislatures, instead of studying to restrict their State expenditures 
to the smallest possible sum, will claim credit for their profusion, and harass the general 
government for increased supplies. Practically, there would soon be but one taxing power, 
and that vested in a body of men far removed from the people, in which the farming and 
mechanic interests would scarcely be represented. The States would gradually lose their 
purity, as well as their independence ; they would not dare to murmur at the proceedings of 
the general government lest they should lose their supplies; all would be merged in a prac- 
tical consolidation, cemented by wide-spread corruption, which would only be eradicated 
by one of those bloody revolutions which occasionally overthrow the despotic systems of 
the Old World." 

s « o «- c- at 

" A system liable to such objections can never be supposed to have been sanctioned by 
the framers of the Constitution when they conferred on Congress the taxing power ; and I 
feel persuaded that a mature examination of the subject will satisfy every one that there 
aie insurmountable difficulties in the operation of any plan which can be devised of col- 
lecting revenue for the purpose of distributing it. Congress is only authorized to levy 
taxes ' to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the 
United States. ' There is no such provision as would authorize Congress to collect together 
the property of the country, under the name of revenue, for the purpose of dividing it, 
equally or unequally, among the States or the people." 

3. Distribution leads to consolidation and, the concentration of all power 
in the national government. — Upon this point, also, I take great pleasure 
in fortifying my views by an extract from General Jackson's message, 
disapproving the land distribution bill of 1833. He says : 

" But this bill assumes a new principle. Its object is not to return to the people an 
unavoidable surplus of revenue paid in by them, but to create a surplus for distribution 
among the States. It seizes the entire proceeds of one source of revenue and sets them 
apart as a surplus, making it necessary to raise the moneys for supporting the government 
and meeting the general charges from other sources. It even throws the entire land sys- 
tem upon the customs for its support, and makes the public lands a perpetual charge upon 
the treasury. It does not return to the people moneys accidentally or unavoidably paid 
by them to the government, by which they are not wanted, but compels the people to pay 
moneys into the treasury for the mere purpose of creatmg a surplus for distribution to 
their State governments. If this principle be once admitted, it is not difficult to per- 
ceive to what consequences it may lead." 

* * 8 • * & 

' ' It appears to me that a more direct road to consolidation cannot be devised. Money 
is power, and in that government which pays all the public officers of the States will all 
political power be substantially concentrated. The State governments, if governments they 
might then be called, would lose all their independence and dignity. The economy which 
now distinguishes them would be converted into a profusion limited only by the extent of 
the supply. Being the dependants of the general government, and looking to its treasury 
as the source of all their emoluments, the State officers, under whatever names they might 
pass, and by whatever forms their duties might be prescribed, would, in effect, be the mere 
stipendiaries and instruments of the central power." 

* * « » a as 

" It is too obvious that such a course would subvert our well-balanced system of gov- 
ernment, and ultimately deprive us of all the blessings now derived from our happy 
union." 

4 . Distribution is a virtual recognition of the power of Congress to 
appropriate money from the national treasury for objects of local inter- 
nal improvement. — This power, which for a quarter of a century has 
been repudiated and disavowed by all political parties in this country, 
bids fair to be again recognized if the distribution policy becomes 
triumphant. Of what avail is it to assert that Congress cannot make 
a direct appropriation from the treasury for such objects, if you con- 
cede the power of Congress to do the same act indirectly by placing 



20 



1 

its funds into the State treasuries to be applied for such purposes? 
"What now gives energy and power to this general movement in favor 
of distribution ? Is it not in a great measure the local internal im- 
provement enterprises of the State ? Do they not expect and are they 
not struggling to construct and complete their roads by federal money, 
nrst to be distributed by Congress to the States, and by the States to 
be transferred to them ? 

Upon this point, too, I take pleasure in fortifying my position by 
the opinion of President Jackson. In the veto message before referred 
to he said : 

lt But there are other principles asserted in the hill which would have impelled me to 
withhold my signature, had I not seen in it a violation of the compacts by which the 
United States acquired title to a large portion of the public lands. It reasserts the prin- 
ciple, contained in the bill authorizing a subscription to the stock of the Maysville, Wash- 
ington, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road Company, from which I was compelled to 
withhold, my consent, for reasons contained in my message of the 27th of May, 1830, to 
the House of Representatives. The leading principle then asserted was, that Congress 
possesses no constitutional power to appropriate any part of the moneys of the United 
States for objects of a local character within the States. That principle, I cannot be mis- 
taken in supposing, has received the unequivocal sanction of the American people, and all 
subsequent reflection has but satisfied me more thoroughly that the interests of our 
people and the purity of our government, if not its existence, depend on its observance. 
The public lands are the common property of the United States, and the moneys arising 
from their sale are a part of the public revenue. This bill professes to raise from and 
appropriate a portion of this public revenue to certain States, providing expressly that 
it shall 'be applied to objects of internal improvement or education within those States,' 
and then proceeds to appropriate the balance to all the States, with the declaration that it 
shall be applied 'to such purposes as the legislatures of the said respective States shall 
deem proper.' The former appropriation is expressly for internal improvements or educa- 
tion, without qualification as to the kind of improvements, and therefore in express 
violation of the principle maintained in my objections to the turnpike road bill above 
referred to. The latter appropriation is more broad, and gives The money to be applied 
to am^ local purpose whatsoever. It will not he denied, that under the provisions of the 
bill a portion of the money might have been applied to making the very road to which 
the bill of 1830 had reference, and must, of course, come within the scope of the same 
principle If the money of the United States cannot be applied to local purposes through 
its own agents, as little can it be permitted to be thus expended through the agency of 
the State governments." 

5. Distribution is a virtual recognition of the power and duty of Con- 
gress to assume the debts of the States. — Does not every distributionist 
who argues with you on the subject place prominently before you, as 
one of the very objects of his policy, the application of the funds to 
the payment oi the existing debt of the States? When some years 
ag-» a resolution was introduced into the Senate of the United Slates 
declaring that the federal government had no power to assume the 
debt of the States, Mr. Clay, in an impassioned manner, exclaimed, 
" When, where, and by whom was the extravagaut idea ever enter- 
tained of an assumption of the State debts by the general government?" 
There was not a solitary voice raised in favor of such a measure in the 
Senate. Little did Mr. Clay imagine that in so short a time many 
who now profess to be devotedly attached to his memory should be 
found maintaining the policy of distribution upon the express and 
exclusive ground that the federal government will thereby be as- 
suming and paying so much of the debt of the States. 

6. Distribution in its operation injurious to the interests of the poor 
man. — In that admirable system which has heretofore distinguished 
the disposition and management of our public lands, two important 



21 

results have constantly been kept in view — -settlement and revenue, 
By certainty of title and cheapness of price, proper inducements have 
been offered to the poor man to abandon the crowded marts of the 
East, and to find in the West a home where, by his hardy toil and 
honest labor, he may rear his family in comfort and affluence. To 
enable the government successfully to promote settlement — the para- 
mount leading object of the national trust — it was essential that the 
price of the public lands should be fixed at a sum so reasonable as to 
bring the purchase within the means of every poor man in the coun- 
try. Whilst the government has not been indifferent to revenue, it 
has nevertheless made that consideration subordinate to the other 
higher and nobler purpose of the trust. But if the system of distri- 
bution be adopted, you will immediately reverse the former wise and 
liberal policy of the government. Then revenue — not settlement — 
will become the primary, paramount, and leading object of the sys- 
tem ; and relying as the States will upon their annual stipends from 
the national treasury, the government will be required to adjust prices 
with the scales of a Shylock, and fix the price of the land at that sum 
which will bring the most money into the treasury for the purpose of 
distribution. Settlement, as the primary policy of the government, 
will then be abandoned ; the interests of the poor man seeking a home 
in the West will be disregarded amidst the clamor for large dividends, 
and the mangement and disposal of the public lands will be regulated 
by all the paltry and selfish considerations which govern a close cor- 
poration in making its annual report of profits to a body of hungry 
stockholders. 

FROM THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PLATFORMS FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS 

"That the federal government is one of limited power, derived solely 
from the Constitution ; and the grants of power made therein ought to 
be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the gov- 
ernment ; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubt- 
ful constitutional powers. 

" That the Constitution does not confer authority upon the federal 
government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several 
States, contracted for local and internal improvements or other State 
purposes, nor would such assumption be just or expedient. 

" That the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly applied 
to the national objects specified in the Constitution, and that we are 
opposed to any law for the distribution of such proceeds among the 
States as alike inexpedient in policy, and repugnant to the Consti- 
tution/' 

WHAT WOULD BE THE AMOUNT FOR ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION? 

Amongst the artifices resorted to by the opposition press to dignify 
the present issue, and to attract the attention and cupidity of the 
people, are the false and fallacious statements of the amount that would 
be tor distribution. In this discreditable game, I regret to see that 
the respectable editors of the National Intelligencer have played so 
conspicuous a part. They have prepared tabular statements designed 



22 

for general circulation, and which have been eagerly seized upon by 
our editors in this State, exhibiting the total gross aggregate receipts 
from the public lands, from 1789 to the 1st July, 1856, amounting, 
according to the statement, to $122,311,294, which they very generously 
proceed to distribute ; and they announce the wonderfully discovery, 
that if this amount, instead of having been applied to the national 
objects specified in the Constitution, such for example as fighting the 
battles of our country against foreign invaders, were at this moment 
in the national treasurv and ready for distribution, the share of Vir- 
ginia would be $9,337,773, all duly set forth in flaring capitals. 

Wonderful discovery ! And they might with equal fairness have 
made out tabular statements to show that if all the money which had 
been collected from customs, from the foundation of the government 
to the present time, was at this moment in the national treasury ready 
for distribution, what an amazing pile it would be ! But I beg leave 
to assure the editors of the National Intelligencer, that, as poor and 
needy as they may suppose the people of Virginia to be, and as fond 
of money, they prefer their laws, liberties, institutions and indepen- 
dence even to the golden visions which they have portrayed before 
them ; nor do they look back with any regret to the expenditures of 
the last seventy years, when they feel that the money has been nobly 
applied to the acquisition of their liberties, the preservation of their 
national independence, and the maintenance of that noble system of 
civil government under which we live. But why are such visionary 
stateriients placed before the popular mind ? Is it not to bewilder 
and mislead the public judgment? Is there a sane politician in the 
country who would countenance a distribution of money not now in 
the treasury, and which during a period of seventy years has been 
expended in support of the government? Then why parade such 
statements before the popular mind, if not designed purposely to pro- 
duce false hopes which they know are utterly absurd and unattainable. 

The editors of the National Intelligencer, in giving to the public the 
gross aggregate receipts of the public lands, do not favor us with the 
sums with which that fund is chargeable lor costs of original purchase, 
extinguishment of Indian titles, expenses of surveys, &c. Had they 
condescended to do so, we should have the remarkable idea boldly pre- 
sented of distributing a fund which is already many millions in debt 
to the public treasury, added to the absurdity of distributing a fund 
which had already many years since been disposed of by Congress in 
accordance with the constitutional necessities of the government. 

I shall supply the omission of tho editors of the National Intelli- 
gencer, by the following exhibit of the charges upon the land fund: 

Extinguishing Indian titles $106,179,000 

Purchase of Louisiana, principal and interest 23,000,000 

Purchase of Florida, principal and interest 0,500,000 

Paid to Georgia 3,082,000 

Paid to 'Mexico, (Mesilla purchase included) 25,000,000 

Released claims 0,000,000 

Paid Texas 10,000,000 

Land Office expenses, surveys and explorations, 15,000,000 

195,301,000 

But what would be the actual amount annually for distribution, 



23 



if any such unwise measure should become a law ? Mr. King, of 
Alabama, in his report, estimated the average annual proceeds at 
$1,750,000. Mr. Calhoun estimates them, in his report, in a previous 
part of this address, at $2,500,000. Mr. Clay estimated them at 
$3,000,000. By referring to the tabular statements contained in that 
curious exposition of the National Intelligencer , before referred to, it 
will be seen, tbat, for the last sixteen years, to wit, since 18^0, there 
are but four years in which the amount of the proceeds of the public 
lands exceeded three millions of dollars ; twelve years in which they 
fell below three millions; six years in which they fell below two mil- 
lions, and one year in which they fell below one million. It is true, 
the receipts for the year ending the 1st of July, 1856, were $8,917,644 ; 
and yet we are informed by the Secretary of the Treasury, in his last 
annual report, that the receipts for the first quarter, of the present 
fiscal year, have fallen below the corresponding quarter of the last 
year $1,463,345 48, rendering it probable that the receipts for the 
present year will not much exceed three millions o f dollars. 

I think it may then be fairly assumed that the annual average pro- 
ceeds of the public lands are about $3,000,000, of which sum, upon 
the principle of all the bills which have heretofore been presented and 
passed, Virginia would receive $141,666 — a sum not sufficient to con- 
struct five miles of railroad a year, and not sufficient, if so applied, to 
diminish, in any perceptible degree, the burden of our existing taxes. 

I cannot withhold the following characteristic specimen of Mr. 
Benton's style of oratory, which exhibits, in a striking manner, the 
small game which the distributionists are pursuing. Speaking in the 
Senate in 1841 on the Land Distribution bill, he said : 

" I scorn the bill. I scout its vaunted popularity. I detest it. Nor can I conceive of an 
object moie pitiable and contemptible than that of the demagogue haranguing fur vwtes, and 
exhibiting his tables of dollars and acres, in order to show each voter, or each State, how 
much money they will be able to obtain from the treasury if the land bill passes Such 
haranguing, and such exhibition is the address of impudence and knavery to supposed igno- 
rance, meanness, and folly. It is treating the people as if they were penny-wise and pound- 
foolish, and still more mean than foolish. Why, the laud revenue, alter deducting the 
expenses, if fairly divided among the people, would not exceed nine-pence a head per annum; 
if fairly divided among the States, and applied to their debts, it would not supersede above 
nine-pence per annum of taxation upon the u its of the population. The day lor land sales 
has gone by The sales of this \ear do not exceed a million and a half of dollars, which 
would not leave more than a million for distribution, which, among sixteen millions of 
people, would be exactly four pence half-penny, Virgi ia money, per head ; a Jip in New 
York, and a picaillon in Louisana At two millions, it would be nine p<mce a head in Vir- 
ginia, equivalent to a levy in New York, and a bit in Louisi na ! precisely the amount which, 
in specie times, a gentleman gives to a negro boy lor holding his horse a minute at the door. 
And for this miserable doit — this insignificant subdivision of a shilling — a York shilling — can 
the demagogue suppose that the people are base enough to violate their Constitution — mean 
enough to surrender the defence of their country, and stupied enough to be taxed in their 
coffee, tea, salt, sugar, coals, hats, blankets, shoes, shirts, and every article of comfort, 
docp'icv, or necessity, which they eat, drink or wear, or on which they stand, sit, sleep, or 
lie?" 

And yet, with no professed object in view but to plunder the national 
treasury of this contemptible pittance, and then to supply that defi- 
ciency thus created by a new tax upon consumption, has a bold and 
defiant issue been joined this spring with the democratic party ; the 
opposition press of this State everywhere glittering in steel and call- 
ing to arms; conventions summoned to bring forth candidates for Con- 
gress and for the general assembly; and even some well meaning and 
most excellent democrats seduced from their allegiance to confederate 



24 

•with the bitter and uncompromising enemies of their party and prin- 
ciples. 

TARIFF OF 1857. 

The time selected for the revival of the distribution policy is not 
less remarkable than the policy itself. When it was urged upon the 
consideration of Congress between 1833 and 1841, there was then 
this palliation for it, to wit, that the tariff was then regulated by a 
formal compact for a period of nine years, and under which compact 
there would necessarily be a surplus in the treasury resulting from 
duties on imports. But now it is sought to be revived upon the heel 
•of the legislation of the last Congress reducing the receipts from cus- 
toms below the revenue standard of the government The average 
expenditures of the federal government is now ascertained to be, with 
our immensely extended territory, about $48,000,000 a year. The 
rate of taxation during the last session of Congress has been so re- 
duced, in connexion with the extended list of free articles, that by the 
tariff which goes into operation on the 1st of July, 1857, the revenue, 
if the importations of the present year and coming year be the same, 
will be diminished some $17,000,000, making our revenue from cus- 
toms for the next fiscal year seme $47,000,000 — one million less than 
the ordinary expenses of the government. We looked to the public 
lands as supplying at least $3,000,000 more, which would give a federal 
■revenue of 50,000,000 against an expenditure of $48,000,000, leaving 
but $2,000,000 to cover those contingencies to which every govern- 
ment is liable. Withdraw from the national treasury the proceeds of 
the lands, and it is manifest, from this statement, the revenue will fall 
below tho average expenses of the government. Congress would 
then be compelled to recede from the advances which it made last 
winter in the direction of free trade, and to revive the burdt-ns which 
it has heretofore imposed upon the commercial industry of the nation. 
This would be especially unfortunate, in view of the fact, that, by the 
tariff which goes into operation on the 1st of July, 1857, many arti- 
cles which enter into the mechanical labor of the country, and add to 
the profit of the mechanic, without injury to the consumer, are placed 
upon the free list, or pay a mere nominal duty. Looking, then, to the 
necessary operation of the tariff of 1857 upon the interests of the 
mechanic, and regarding distribution as inconsistent with the provi- 
sions and policy of that act, [ can but regard every movement to pro- 
mote distribution at this time but as a blow deliberately aimed at the 
mechanical interests of the country. 

MR CLAY.— HIS BILL IN 1832. 

ISIo politician was in principle more opposed to distribution than Mr. 
Olay. To that extent, at least, he retained the benefits of his early 
republican training, and coincided with the policy of the democratic 
party. Many passages might be extracted from his speeches in proof 
of this fact; but I will content myself with two. In his speech of 
January 28, 1841, he said : 

" The republican party of 1798, in whose school 1 was brought up, and to whose rule of 
interpreting the Constitution 1 have ever adhered, maintained that tins w <s a limited gov- 
ernment ; that it had no powers but g anted powers, or powers necessary and proper to curry 



into effect the granted powers ; and that, in any given instance of the exercise of power, it 
was necessary to show the specific grant of it, or that the proposed rnpasure was necessary 
and proper to carry into effect the granted powers ; and that in any given instance of the 
exercise of power, it was necessary to show the specific grant of it, or that the proposed 
measure was ne essary and proper to carry into effect a specifically granted power or powers. " 
" There is, thtn, I repeat, no power or authority m the general government to lau and collect 
taxes, in oider to distribute the proceeds among the States. Such a financial project, if any ad- 
ministration were mad enough to adopt it, would be a flagrant usurpation." 

Again : Mr. Clay, upon another occasion, said : 

" F a* one, however, 1 will again repeat the declaration which I made early in the session, 
that I unite cordi illy with those who condemn the application of any principle of distribu- 
tion among the several States to surplus revenue derived from taxation." 

It is true, Mr. Clay modified his opinions upon this subject so far 
as he yielded his assent to the bill for the distribution of the proceeds 
of the public lands ; and yet it is difficult to see any distinction, either 
in principle or practical results, between a distribution from the 
national treasury of moneys collected from customs, or moneys derived 
from the sale of the public lands. They both do now, and have from the 
foundation of the government, constituted the revenue of the Union ; 
and the same objections must apply to the withdrawal of either for the 
purposes of gift or donation to the States. Mr. Clay was a bold and 
dashing politician. He did not permit himself in the latter period of 
his life to be trammelled by nice constitutional limitations. His con- 
struction of the power of the national government became broad, libe- 
ral, and Hamiltonian ; and when the political necessity was sufficiently 
urgent, he never failed to see in the Constitution ample authority to 
do anything which he believed to be essential to the interests of the 
country. Originally opposed to a national bank as a measure in con- 
flict with the Constitution of the United States, he promptly sacrificed 
his constitutional objections when he believed the necessities of the 
government required such an instrument of finance. Clear in his 
opinions as to the rights of the people of the south to an unrestricted 
enjoyment of the benefits of the public domain, he nevertheless did 
not hesitate, when the hurricane of 1820 was passing over the country, 
with the hope of staying its destructive ravages, to give his approval 
to that unconstitutional prohibition by which the people of the south 
were excluded from any fair participation in the occupation and settle- 
ment of two-thirds of the national territory. So in 1832, as deeply 
impressed as he was with the inexpediency and unconstitutionality of 
distribution, he, nevertheless, with a view, as he believed, of saving 
the public lands from being ceded to the States in which they lay. 
recommended a plan for the distribution of their proceeds amongst the 
States. Time does not permit me to go into any extended history of 
the events of that day. It may be sufficient to say that powerful in- 
fluences were at work to force from Congress a cession of the public 
lands to the land States. A proposition to cede prospectively, after the 
1st of July, 1835, all the lands remaining unsold on that day, had actu- 
ally passed the Senate, but was defeated in the House. The proposition 
to inquire into the expediency of making a cession of these lands to the 
land States was, in 1832, against his own solemn protestations, re- 
ferred by the Senate to Mr. Clay, as chairman of the Committee on 
Manufactures, for a report. He believed the condition of the land 
question at that time to be such that either the government must sur~ 



26 

render its interests in the lands to the States in which they lay, or 
adopt some other measure less objectionable. From this emergency 
resulted his bill for the distribution of the proceeds of their sale — 
a measure which, I believe, he would not at that day have sanctioned 
if he had not believed it was the only alternative for cession. 
Accordingly, in his celebrated report, he says : 

" A majority of the committee believes it better as an alternative for the scheme of cession 
to the new States, and as being most likely to give general satisfaction, that the residue be 
divided among the twenty-four States, according to their federal representative population," 
&c, &c. 

And again, at a subsequent period, when the same measure was 
before the Senate, brought forward by Mr. Crittenden, he and his 
party were reproached with attempts to force it upon the country. 
Mr. Clay, referring to certain projects before the Senate to squander 
the public domain, and among others cessions to the land States of 
the whole within their limits, said : 

" Under these circumstances, my colleague presents a conservative measure, and proposes, 
in lieu of one of these wasteful projects bv way of amendment, an equitable distribution 
among all the States of the avails of the public lands. With what propriety, then, can it be 
said that we, who are acting solely on the defensive, have forced the measure upon our 
opponents? Let them withdraw their bill, and I will answer for it that my colleague will 
withdraw his amendment, and will not at this session press any measure of distribution. No, 
sir ; no." 

I am prepared to do Mr. Clay the justice to say that his bill did 
accomplish the great object which its illustrious author had in view 
when he introduced it. It has performed its function. It destroyed 
the greater monster cession. For fifteen years we have seen no man 
rise in either House of Congress the advocate of ceding the public 
lands to the States. We hear of no such class of politicians now in 
the country ; and it is well known that Mr. Clay himself, although a 
long time in Congress subsequent to 1844, was never known after that 
day to revive any such proposition again in that body. 

WEBSTER, RIVES, BENTOX. 

It is manifest to all who have read the extracts previously taken 
from the speches of Mr. Webster, that, with his strong constitutional 
impressions of the public lands being a public fund for the common 
benefit of the United States in their federal capacity, he must have 
yielded a very reluctant assent to the proposition to divide these funds 
amongst the States for their separate use. I have therefore sought, 
with no little labor, to find amongst his writings or speeches some 
argument in support of that proposition. But I have looked in vain. 
Although in Congress many years, during which time the bill was 
pressed upon the country, and when, doubtless, as a party measure, 
he gave it his vote, I can find no vindication by him, in that body, of 
a policy so directly in conflict with his earlier and unanswerable opin- 
ions on that subject. 

Knowing, too, that Mr. Rives was one of the Whig senators from 
Virginia, at the extra session of 1841, when the bankrupt bill, the 
land distribution bill, and a batch of similar measures were forced 
upon the country, destined scarcely to survive the Congress which 
passed them, I felt curious to know what a senator from Virginia, 
raised at the feet of James Madison, and intimate with Jefferson, 



27 



could say in support of a measure so directly in conflict with all the 
teachings of these great masters. Mr. Rives voted for the bill — Mr. 
Rives made a speech in the Senate in support of the bill — Mr. Rives 
procured his notes of the reporter for revision — a vacant space appears 
in the index of the Congressional Globe inviting its insertion. Mr. 
Rives yet lives, but no speech of Mr. Rives has yet appeared to vindi- 
cate his position on that occasion. Did he find, when he came to 
review his position, and in the still and quiet repose of his chamber 
to ponder over the principles involved in that measure, that they were 
such as he could not exactly reconcile to his judgment and patriotism? 
Did a more careful scrutiny satisfy him that his arguments were fal- 
lacious and his positions irreconcileable with the true theory and with 
the honest practice of the government? Did he shrink from a sub- 
mission of the grounds of his opinion to the stern and impartial judg- 
ment of his State ? And was he content to let it pass as the vote of 
the mere partisan, to be defended upon such considerations as might 
justify and excuse an exact compliance with the behests of party? 

This suppression by Mr. Rives of his speech on the land distribu- 
tion question is the more remarkable after the assault which was made 
upon it by Mr. Benton, who followed in immediate reply. If there 
ever was an occasion which required a senator from Virginia to show 
"the reasons for the iaith that was in him," it was when giving a 
vote in direct conflict with the sentiment of the State which he repre- 
sented, and when his positions were assailed with the uncompromising 
denunciation which marked the reply of his antagonist. The reply 
of Mr. Benton is long, and I shall only extract a few words from its 
exordium, to show the obligation which devolved upon Mr. Rives to 
explain the grounds of his vote to the people of Virginia. 

" Mr. Benton rose after Mr. Rives, and inquired of him whether he had understood him 
aright, in understanding that he voted for this bill, among other reasons, because it put an 
end t') the scheme for graduating the price of the public lands — put an end to the scheme of 
ceding the lands to the new States — put an end to the land question, and saved the lands 
from being seized upon hereafter by the new States to the exclusion of the old ones. (Mr. 
Rives nodded assent.) Then, exclaimed Mr Benton, I have you! You commit a fraud in 
giving that vote, and it is my duty to detect and expose it. Your vote is a fraud. (Loud 
calls to order interrupted Mr. B., and the President of the Senate declared it to be a breach 
of order to impute fraud to Sen tors ) I know it is, said Mr. B., and that the breach of order 
is the greater on this occasion, because I impute no intentional fraud to the gentleman. His 
vote operates a fraud, and it is my duty to show it ; but ] know him to be incapable of inten- 
tionally committing fraud. It is the effect of his vote, coupled with the reason which he has 
given; and while I proceed to show, I disclaim all intention of impugning motives, and making 
this disclaimer, not as matter of form under parliamentary rule, but in substance and in fact, 
as an act of justice and of duty, and under a sense of what is due men of honor. But his 
vote operates a fraud, a serious one, upon the new States — affecting their rights and interests, 
and which it is my dutv to detect and expose. Understood as he understands the bill, and to 
be acted upon according to that understanding, and it is a flat contradiction of what the bill 
professes, a nullification of the clause inserted for the benefit of the new States, and a mock 
ery of the conditions upon which the pa>sage of the bill is obtained. This is harsh language, 
but not more harsh than true, and more easily proved lhan uttered. 

DOES VIRGINIA DERIVE NO BENEFIT FROM THE PUBLIC LANDS? 

Notwithstanding the clear and unanswerable exposition of facts 
contained in this address, we shall still, as in the days of our revolu- 
tionary struggle, have our Johnny Hooks running through the coun- 
try, exclaiming beef! beef! money! money! land ! land! and de- 
claring that Virginia derives no benefit from the public domain, but 



28 

that all its advantages are monopolized by the southern and north- 
western land States. Is this true ? Does not Virginia derive every 
benefit from the public lands, and in a higher and greater degree than 
she herself anticipated when she united with her sister States in a 
surrender of them to the federal government ? Were they not granted 
for the ci common defence and support of the Union," and have their 
proceeds not been so applied ? Have they not gone into your national 
treasury, and been applied to pay off the debts of your revolutionary 
war ? of your second war of independence ? and of the Mexican war ? 
to the maintenance of your army, your navy, and your judiciary — to 
defend you in war, and give wings to your commerce in peace ? Did 
she not make large reservations of land between the Scioto and Miami 
rivers for the benefit of her officers and soldiers of the revolutionary 
war ? and have not these reservations been most liberally and bounti- 
fully applied to their relief, and in amount far beyond their extent ? 
Did she not impose it as a condition of the grant, "that the territory 
so ceded shall be laid out and formed into States, containing a suitable 
extent of territory, and that the States so formed shall be distinct re- 
publican States, and admitted members of the federal Union, having 
the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the 
other States?" And has not this condition been faithfully fulfilled? 
Five free, prosperous, and sovereign States — co-equal members of our 
federal alliance — now occupy that Territory, which at the period of 
the grant was the cheerless abode of the untutored savage and the 
untameable wild beast. From every part of that then wild and un- 
cultivated wilderness is now heard the voice of Christian and civilized 
man, doing homage to his great creator, and rejoicing in the blessings 
of the freest and noblest system of popular government which the 
world has ever seen. Is it no source of pride to Virginia? Does it 
inspire her with no lofty reminiscences to reflect that she has had 
some agency in this mighty work of Christianity, civilization, and 
liberty? But what is meant by those who say the people of Virginia 
derive no benefit from these public lands? Who, in their opinion, 
-are the people of Virginia ? Are they those alone who happen to be 
presidents, stockholders, or persons interested in railroad corpora- 
tions? is it even alone the rich, the high born, the prosperous, the 
wealthy, who feel that they are in the enjoyment of a goodly heri- 
tage of broad acres, and who are content to spend their lives under 
the shades of their patrimonial oaks ? Are there no other persons 
born upon our soil who are entitled to be called the people of Vir- 
ginia? Are there no poor, no destitute, no unfortunate, and no heart- 
broken amongst our people, who, unblessed by the advantages of 
birth and fortune, have, for the last fifty years, are now, and will for 
centuries yet to come, look to our great possessions in the West, as a 
refuge where they can find a cheap home, and protect themselves and 
their children from penury and want. Every poor man in Virginia 
feels at this moment that he has, under our present system, a valu- 
able appreciable interest in the public domain, of which he can avail 
himself at any moment, and which he would be very reluctant to sur- 
render. Again, has not Virginia, in common with her sister States, 
derived a large benefit from these public lands, in the vast increase of 



29 

consumers which it has added to the country, and who, by contribut- 
ing their proportion to the general expenditures of the federal govern- 
ment, lessen the burden which would otherwise fall upon her people? 
The celebrated Edmund Burke, in his speech recommending that the 
forest lands of the British crown should be brought into market and 
converted into private property, at a moderate price, laid down the 
following just and profound maxims of political economy: 

" The revenue to be derived from the sale of the forest lands will not be so considerable a B 
many have imagined; and I conceive it would be unwise to screw ii. up to the utmost, or even 
to suffer bidders to enhance according to their eagerness, wherein the expense of that pur- 
chase may weaken the capital to be employed in their cultivation. f * * The principal 
revenue which I propose to draw from these uncultivated wastes is to spring from the im- 
provement and population of the kingdom, events infinitely more advantageous to the reve- 
nues of the crown, than the rents of the best landed estates which it can hold. * * * It is 
thus that I would dispose of the unprofitable landed estates of the crown, throw them into the 
mass of private property, by which they will come, through the course of circulation, and 
through the political secretions of the State, into well regulated revenue." 

The history of the landed system of our country furnishes the most 
convincing proof of the value of cultivation. At the time that public 
lands were first acquired by the United States, the most extraordinary 
expectations were indulged in with reference to them. It was sup- 
posed that they could be converted into the means at once of paying 
off the large public debt, of supporting the government, and after 
doing ail this, of leaving a nice sum over and above what would be 
required for these purposes. The experience of the government for 
seventy years has exposed the fallacy of these expectations, and estab- 
lished conclusively that it is from their cultivation, and not their sale, 
that great benefit is to be derived. The products from sale have been 
proportionately meagre, whilst the revenue from cultivation has de- 
frayed the expenses of three wars, and enabled the government to be 
supported in a style infinitely beyond the expectation of those who 
framed it. The gross proceeds of the sales of the public lands has 
been but a little over $122,000,000, whilst that derived from the 
customs, after paying all the expenses of collection, amounts to 
$1,000,000,000. " This immense amount of revenue springs from the 
use of soil reduced to private property. For the duties are derived 
from imported goods; the goods are received in exchange for exports; 
and the exports, with a small reduction for the profits of the sea, are 
the produce of the farm and forest. This is but half the picture. 
The other half must be shown, and will display the cultivation of the 
soil, in its immense exports, as giving birth to commerce and naviga- 
tion, and supplying employment to all the trades connected with these 
two grand branches of national industry, while the business of selling 
the land is a meagre and leaner operation. Whilst such has been the 
difference between sale and cultivation, no powers of calculation can 
carry out the difference and show what it will be ; for whilst the sale 
of the land is a single operation, and can be performed but once, the 
extraction of revenue from its cultivation is an annual and perpetual 
process, increasing in productiveness through all time with the increase 
of population, the amelioration of soil, the improvement of the coun- 
try, and the application of science to the industrial pursuits." 

What possible benefit, in the very nature of things, could Virginia 
derive from the public lands that she does not now enjoy? Unlike 
Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, &c, she has 



30 

none of the public domain within her limits ; and whilst therefore she 
cannot participate in the incidental benefits derived from having them 
within her borders, so likewise is she not exposed to the burdens, dis- 
advantages, and annoyances incident to having immense wastes of 
land without cultivation or improvement, in a state yielding no reve- 
nue and paying no taxes. With the single exception, then, of such 
advantages as might accrue to her from having the public lands within 
her limits, of what other is she deprived? The proceeds of their sale 
go into the common treasury of the Union, and to that extent diminish 
taxes which her people would otherwise have to pay. Her poor can 
there find cheap homes, embracing every variety of soil, climate, and 
production. Her married men, if they do not choose to take up their 
abode in the new States, may invest their spare cash for the advan- 
tage of their children, looking to the day when population and settle- 
ment will have given increased value to the investment ; and in this 
act of provident foresight they are protected by compacts between the 
federal government and the States, by which the latter forever debar 
themselves of the right of making any injurious discrimination in the 
matter of taxation between resident and non-resident proprietors. I 
again repeat, what higher or other benefit can it be possible to give 
to Virginia on the public domain ? 

IS YIRGINIA ON THE DECLINE? 

This is one of those favorite topics upon which the distributionists, 
chiming in with the abolition orators of the north, and stealing from 
them both their figures of speech and figures of arithmetic, descant with 
more than their customary eloquence and power. We are told Vir- 
ginia is poor and oppressed by debt ; that her population is rapidly fly- 
ing beyond her limits ; that her lands are depreciating in value, and 
that we shall soon return to our primeval condition of a wilderness, 
unless we can get from the national treasury our dividend of the land 
fund — a fund averaging a little more than ten cents per head to each 
white inhabitant of the State. Our condition is feelingly compared 
with that of Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, &c, and their rapid growth 
contrasted with our rapid and hopeless decline. It is true that Vir- 
ginia, taken altogether as a State, does not exhibit at this time the 
rapid growth which we see in the young republics of the northwest. 
It would be strange, indeed, if it were so — quite as strange as if a man 
of mature years should grow as rapidly in height as a boy of fourteen. 
But to assert that Virginia is declining in wealth, population, im- 
provement, or anything else that contributes to form the material 
power of a great commonwealth, is utterly false and unfounded, and 
exhibits a total unacquaintance with her actual condition. Iu the 
extent, value, and variety of our mineral resources, ours is beyond all 
question the richest State in the Union, and the time is near at hand 
wh«m they will be in the full progress of development. Our popula- 
tion is surely and steadily on the increase ; our lands are becoming 
every day more productive ; large wastes are being brought into suc- 
cessful cultivation ; public improvements are penetrating every portion 
of the State, and immigration is seeking the advantages of our genial 
climate and adding every day to our resources and capacity to bear 
taxation. 



31 



The official statistics of our State, which have just come to hand, 
enable us very conclusively to overthrow the theories of the northern 
abolition writers and the southern distribution advocates, founded 
upon the supposed decline of Virginia. The returns of the recent re- 
assessment of the real estate of this commonwealth exhibits an extent 
of progress and improvement of the highest and most gratifying char- 
acter. By referring to the reassessment of lands made in 1856, and 
comparing it with the assessment made in 1850, less than six years ago, 
it will be seen that within that short time there has been an increase in 
the value of real estate of upwards of one hundred million of dollars. 

Total assessment of 1850 $274,680,226 

Total assessment of 1856 376,297,227 

Assessment of 1856 over that of 1850 101,617,001 



As the result in each of the counties in this congressional district 
cannot fail to be a subject of interest to the public, I herewith insert 
them. 



Counties. 



Assessment of 
1850. 



Assessment of 
1856. 



Increase 
per cent. 



Berkeley _ . 

Clarke 

Frederick . _ 
Hampshire 
Jefferson... 

Loudon 

Morgan 

Page. 

Warren 



$4,408,018 
3,381.165 
3,256,112 
2,963,778 
6,135,047 
9,156,846 
687,259 
1,701,563 
1,594.217 



$5,097,188 
3,832,537 
5,742,751 
3,863,845 
6,708,899 

11,600,097 

727, 152 

2,100,422 

2.200,099 



15 
13 
76 
30 

9 
26 

6 
23 
38 



33,284,005 



41,872,990 



Increase of value in gross. 
Per-centage of increase 



588,985 

25 per cent. 



There is another subject developed by the recent assessment of striking 
interest to every Virginia statesman, and that is the rapid increase of 
population and rapid appreciation of property observable in many 
portions of the western part of this State. To enable you to form 
some judgment of this gratifying fact, I hereunto append the results 
from several of those counties. 



Counties. 



Braxton . _ 

Carrol 

Floyd 

Preston 

Raleigh ._ 
Wyoming. 



Assessment of 
1850. 



$495, 647 
440,812 
658,951 
1,168,799 
240 504 
127,397 



3, 132, 110 



Assessment of 
1856. 



$1,120,293 

4,282,451 

1,615,068 

2,980,604 

510.266 

380,196 



10,888,878 



Increase 
per cent. 



125 

871 
145 
155 
112 
198 



Increase of value in gross. 
Per-centage of increase. _. 



',756,768 

248 per cent. 



32 

Is there anything in the progress of Illinois, Indiana, or Iowa, or 
any of the new and growing communities of the northwest, that can 
exhibit an advancement in wealth more striking and wonderful than 
these? And yet in attaining these results Virginia has not had to 
depend upon the charities of the national government. She has not 
had to feed upon the crumbs that fall from the table of the federal 
Dives — to invoke the aid of that annual gratuity more fatal to her 
than the cup of Circe which the distributionists are so loudly clamor- 
ing for ; nor has she been compelled so far to sell her birthright for a 
mess of pottage. 

Self-Reliance is the great element of success in this world with 
States and with individuals. Teach your sons to work — teach them 
to look to their own labor as the means of living; — teach them to relv 
upon the energies and resources that they find within themselves, 
and you will have taught them a lesson of far greater value than all 
the lands and slaves which you can bequeath to them. A child dif- 
ferently reared will, in nine cases out of ten, prove a burden to himself 
and a curse to his parents. So it is with nations and States. Vir-. 
ginia can alone prosper "by the labor, the enterprise, the means of 
Virginia. Let the distributionist succeed in instilling his fatal poison 
into the public mind — let him succeed in persuading the people of 
Virginia that their proper policy is to depend not upon themselves, 
but upon the strong arm of the federal government — that they are too 
poor or too proud to work, and that their necessities should be sup- 
plied from the overflowings of the national treasury — and you will 
not only arrest the now onward march of material improvements in 
this State, but you will so enervate and emasculate your people as to 
make them unfit depositaries of that high and holy trust of popular 
government under which they at this moment live in such prosperity 
and happiness 

DEPOSIT AND DISTRIBUTION. 

These two terms should not be confounded. In our political vocabulary there is a wide and 
palpable distinction between them, both in principle and practice. Viraini t, in 1837, received 
two millions assigned to her as a deposit: whi'st in 1842 she rejected the for>y thousand dollars 
tendered to her as her portion of the distribution fund. The first, she believed she might ac- 
cept in s rict accord mre with the Constitution ; the. latter, she. thought cuu'd rut be accented 
without becoming a party to a gross violation of that instrument Distribution is a term by 
which we characterize (he gr«p| of public nvney from the national treasury without t quiva- 
]ent or coi sideratiori — a grant for no olject specified in the Con-t tution, and with no stipulation 
to return it if required by the further necessities of the national treasury. In other uords, it 
is &pure gift of tne. public money which the Constitution confers no authority upon Congress 
to make. A deposit by the federal government wi;h the States is where, there havirg a-isen 
■&,< unexp c cted surplus in the treasury, it is placed in the custody of the S ates under a distinct 
agr ement to refund it, if ever thereafter the necessities of the nation A treasury should require 
it 

I have already shown you that Mr. Clav «nd Mr. Webster both concurred with the whole 
m-as-* of Democra'ic statesmen in declaring a distribution amongst the States of a surplus 
revenue arising from taxation to be in violation of the Constitution, and a flagrant act of 
usurpati n They, however, did concur with Democratic stat smen in regarding a deposit of 
the .-ame surplus amorgst the States as eminently wise and proper when madr, in 1836, and as 
being in strict accordance, with the Constitution. 

A very brief reference to the. facts connected with the, deposit act of 1836 will doubtless be 
accepts be to the p ople, and throw some light on this subject. 

A surplus of $36,0UO,O0O had accumulaed in our nat onal treasury in the year 1836- A 
proposition 'o deposit that surplus with the States was made by M>. Calhoun, and sustained in 
debate by Webster Buchanan. Clay, Rives, Lehih, King, of Alabama, Crittenden,^ &c. It 
passed the Senate by a vote of 39 to 6, the House of Representatives by a vote of 156 to 38, 
and was approved by Andrew Jackson, then President of the United S;ates. 



&3 

The annals of Congress might be in vain searched for such a concurrence of sentiment 
amongst the political leaders of that day, upon an important question of public policy. They 
all agreed in the wisdom and constitutionality of a deposit of this surplus amongst the States, 
and yet not one of the distinguished men above referred to would have, for one moment, sanc- 
tioned a distribution of the same money amongst the States. 

The precise provisions of the bill, with the grounds of its support, may be gathered from the 
accompanying copy of the bill as it passed Congress on the 23d of June, 1836, with a few 
extracts from the remarks of some of the leading statesmen who gave to it their support, 

THE BILL. 

Be it enacted, That the money which shall be in the Treasury of the United States on the 
first day of January, 1837, (reserving the sum of five millions of dollars,) shall be deposited 
with such of the several States, in proportion to their respective representation in the Senate 
and House of Representatives of the United States, as shall, by law, authorize their treas- 
urers or other competent authorities, to receive the same, on the terms hereinafter specified ; 
and the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver the same to such treasurers or other compe- 
tent authorities, on receiving certificates of deposit therefor, signed by such competent au- 
thorities, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary aforesaid, which certificates shall 
express the usual and legal obligations, and pledge the faith of the States for the safe-keeping 
and repayment thereof, and shall pledge the faith of the States receiving the same to pay tho 
said moneys, and every part thereof, from time to time, whenever the same shall be required 
by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the purpose of defraying any wants of the public treasury, 
beyond the amount of the five millions aforesaid : Provided, That if any State declines to 
receive its proportion of the surplus aforesaid, on the terms before named, the same shall be 
deposited with the other States agreeing to accept the same on deposit in the proportion 
aforesaid : And provided further, That when said money, or any part thereof, shall be wanted 
by the said Secretary, to meet apropriations by law, the same shall be called for, in rateable 
proportion, within one year, as nearly as conveniently may be, irom the different States, 
with which the same is deposited, and shall not be called for in sums exceeding ten thousand 
dollars from any one State in any one month, without previous notice of thirty days for 
every additional sum of twenty thousand dollars, which may at any time be required. 

Mr. Buchanan said : 

" What, then, is the true nature of the measure now before the Senate? It is a deposit 
with the States in form, and a deposit in effect. It is no distribution — no gift of the public 
money. The bill requires the States receiving the money to deliver to the Secretary of the 
Treasury certificates of deposit for such amounts, and in such form as he may prescribe — 
payable to the United States or their assigns ; and, without any direction from Congress, he 
is authorized to sell and assign these certificates, rateably,in proportion to the sums received, 
and thus convert them into money whenever it shall become necessary for the payment of 
any of the appropriations made by Congress. How any constitutional objection can arise 
to this disposition of the public money, I am utterly at a loss to conceive, in order to main- 
tain such an objection, gentlemen must establish the position that Congress do not possess 
the power of depositing the public money where they think proper. This would, indeed, be 
a Herculean task. 

"This bill provides merely for a deposit of the public money with the States ; not for a do- 
nation of it to them. In its terms and in its spirit, it proposes nothing more than to make 
the State treasuries the depositories of a portion of the public money, instead of the deposit 
banks. If the States should derive incidental advantages from the use of this money, without 
interest, the deposit banks have heretofore used it, and, under the provisions of this bill, 
will continue to use it, upon the very same terms, to the extent of one-fourth of their capi- 
tals. Surely no senator upon this floor can complain of the benefits which may be conferred 
upon the States by the adoption of this measure." 

Mr. Calhoun said, in his speech delivered on the passage of the 
bill : 

"But the plan proposed is supported by its justice, as well a3 these high considerations of 
political expediency. The surplus money in the treasury is not ours. It properly belongs 
to those who made it, from whom it has been unjustly taken. I hold it an unquestionable 
principle that the government has no right to take a cent from the people beyond what is 
necessary to meet its legitimate and constitutional wants. To take more intentionally would 
be robbery ; and if the government has not incurred the guilt in the present case, its exemp- 
tion can only be found m its folly — the folly of not seeing and guarding against a vast excess 
of revenue, which the most ordinary understanding ought to have foreseen and prevented . I 
it were in our power — if we could ascertain from whom the vast amount now in the treasury 
was improperly taken, justice would demand that it should be returned to its lawful owners. 
But, as that is impossible, the measure next best, as approaching nearest to restitution, is 
that which is proposed, to deposit it in the treasuries of the several States, which will place 

2 



34 

it under the disposition of the immediate representatives of the people, to be used by them as 
they may think fit, till the wants of the government may require its return." 

Mr. Calhoun, six years afterwards, referring, to it in January, 1841, 
with satisfaction to the course which he had then pursued, made the 
following reference to the deposit bill of 1836 : 

" I regarded it then, and still do, as simply a deposit. But while I regarded it as a deposit 
I did then and now do believe that it should never be withdrawn but in the event of war, when 
it would be found a valuable resource. The surplus was not lawfully collected. Congress 
had no right to take a cent from the people but for the just and constitutional wants of the 
country. To take more, or for other purposes, is neither more nor less than robbing — more 
criminal for being perpetrated by a trustee appointed to guard their interest. It, in fact, be- 
longed to those from whom it was unjustly plundered ; and if the individual and the share of 
each could have been ascertained it ought, upon every principle of justice, to have been re- 
turned to them. But as that was impossible, the nearest practicable approach to justice was 
to return it proportionately to the Stales as a deposit till wanted for the use of the people 
from whom it was unjustly taken, instead of leaving it with the banks for the benefit of specu- 
lators and stock-jobbers. So far from this (being distribution) the deposite act, whether 
viewed in the causes which led to it, or its object and effects, stands in direct contrast with it. 
3d vol. p. 581. 

On the 20th of December, 1836, Virginia passed an act declaring 
her willingness to accept her proportion of the deposites, and in the 
preamble of that act expressed the following sound and just opinions : 

" That while the general assembly regard anv system of taxation by the Federal Govern- 
ment producing more revenue than is necssary for the wants of the government economically 
administered, as impolitic and unjust ; and denies the right of the Congress of the United 
States to raise revenue for the purpose of deposit or distribution amongst the States. Never- 
theless believing the surplus money in the treasury to have arisen under extraordinary cir- 
cumstances, not likely to continue, and considering the provisions of said act to be a tempo- 
rary expedient to relieve a redundant treasury, and being willing in good faith under such 
circumstances to receive the proportion of said surplus proposed to be deposited with the 
State of Virginia — therefore be it enacted, &c." 

At this period the trade and industry of our State was suffering 
materially from a deficiency of banking capital. The general assembly, 
therefore, increased the capital of the existing banks $4,600,000, 
reserving to herself a right to subscribe one moiety of the increase, 
and investing $2,000,000 of the amount received from the federal gov- 
ernment in the capital stock of her banks. This deposit we have had 
for near 21 years, without accountability for a dollar of interest ; we 
have never been called upon to refund any part of it to the federal 
government ; and our State treasury has in the form of bank taxes 
and dividends realized from that deposit near four millions of dollars, 
which have been applied to relieve the farmer and mechanic from the 
payment of so much taxes, which otherwise must have been assessed 
upon his lands and labor. Since that deposit has been made with the 
States we have had a foreign war, we have added by purchase almost 
an empire to our former territory, incurred, and nearly paid off a 
debt of $100,000,000, and yet no. demand has been made by the 
federal government upon the State for any portion of its funds, now 
in their custody. 

It may be asked if the federal government does not exercise its 
right to call for this money, what substantial difference is there be- 
tween distribution and a deposit? The difference is vital both in the 
power asserted and in the practical operation of the principles involved. 
Congress may deposit — it cannot constitutinally distribute. Again, 
distribution, as proposed, is to be an act of annual recurrence, a fixed 
and established policy, causing an habitual dependance of the States 
upon the federal government for their annuities, stimulating them 



35 

to extravagance by an absence of all responsibility for its return, and 
creating a surplus for the mere purpose of distribution. Whilst a 
deposit, so far as it has ever been countenanced by any respectable 
statesman in this country, can only be of rare occurrence, growing 
out of an unforseen and unexpected condition of the treasury, designed 
as a temporary expedient to relieve its plethora, and always accom- 
panied by efficient legislation to arrest the recurrence of a similar 
surplus. The one is advocated as a regular mode of supplying a State 
with the means of expenditure ; the other is justified as a rare and 
occasional alternative to protect the currency and business of the 
nation from evils of the most disturbing and alarming character. 

I can think of but one contingency in which it is probable that the 
federal government will ever call upon the States for the sums depos- 
ited with them, and that might take place, if we should ever be in- 
volved in a war with some great naval power like Great Britain, when 
our commerce might be swept from the ocean and the federal revenues 
from imports wholly cut off. And in that event a call upon the States 
would be far less onerous to the people than a resort to direct taxation, 
a power vested in Congress by the Constitution, and which it exercised 
in 1813-'14 during our late war with. G-reat Britain. 

The condition of our treasury during the session of the late Congress 
was not unlike what it was in 1836, when the deposit act of that year 
passed. Owing to causes wholly unforseen and unexpected we found 
that we should have, under the existing rate of duties, a surplus in the 
treasury on the 30th of June, 1857, of §25,000,000, and on the 30th of 
June, 1858, of $50,000,000, all of which being in specie, taken from 
general circulation and locked up in the treasury, could not fail to 
derange the monied affairs of the country and spread bankruptcy and 
ruin from one extremity of the Union to the other. To guard against 
these evils it became our imperative duty to reduce the duties on imports, 
and thus lessen the revenue. This we did, but our new tariff could 
only go into operation at the beginning of the new fiscal year, the 1st 
of July, 1857. It could not therefore affect the surplus of $25,000,000 
which would be in the treasury on that day. What was to be done 
with that surplus ? If there had been any just national and constitu- 
tional objects demanding that expenditure, and of which there was any 
probability it would have been so applied, I should have preferred 
that direction to have been given to it. But we had conclusive evi- 
dence, by the rejection of the bill for constructing ten steam sloops, 
and other bills of equal national importance, that no hope could be en- 
tertained of giving that direction to the surplus, but on the contrary, 
that our redundant treasury was stimulating to wild, corrupting, and 
extravagant schemes of expenditure. With this state of facts before 
me — and the Committee of Ways and Means having reported a bill 
framed upon the principles of the act of 1836, to deposit that surplus 
with the States, I cast my vote without hesitation for the bill. It 
passed the House of Representatives by a very decided vote, I think 
by a majority of 40, but was lost in the Senate from their inability, as 
I learn, to reach it before the close of Congress, from the pressure of 
other business having precedence over it. 

Had the bill passed, the share or proportion of the fund falling to 



S6 

Virginia would have been not far short of two millions of dollars, 
which, if invested as it was in 1836, would lessen your taxes annually 
some two hundred thousand dollars. 

I have made this reference to my vote on the deposit hill of the 
last Congress with no view or expectation of conciliating the distri- 
butionists of this district. I see no evidence in their course that they 
are actuated by any sincere desire to lessen the burdens or to advance the 
interests of the people. I may expect, therefore, rather to exasperate 
than appease them, when I demonstrate the utter insignificance of 
their plans for the relief of the people, and how much more beneficial 
to the Commonwealth it is, even upon their own view of State advan- 
tage, to receive two millions in the constitutional form of a deposit, 
than one hundred and forty thousand dollars in the form of an illegal 
distribution. My sole object in referring to the subject is to vindicate 
the consistency of my own conduct — -to show that my vote during the 
last session of Congress for the deposit of the $25,000,000 with the 
States was not to be confounded with the idea of distribution; and to 
make clear the proposition, that whilst I am at all times ready to pro- 
mote every interest of my constituents, I can only do it in such form 
as the Constitution of my country will warrant. It so happens, in the 
present instance, that the constitutional mode is the most valuable to 
the people, and apart from all pecuniary considerations, such will 
always be found to be the case, in every well regulated constitutional 
government. 

CHAS. JAS. FAULKNER. 

Boydvtlle, April 21, 1857. 



«t- 



Bg^ywr wr 



m' UM l^-^ 






LIBRARY 




. >»: ■■■■..— _ 









a 



" FT* 



m& 



"3(**kr 



j&>jm 




- 


W> 2-?. £*£ 

- 




b>.- %^. 


- 7 <££ 



